Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: it is read-only, never signs/transfers/approves, returns markdown with a Verdict, and handles unpaid calls with HTTP 402 with a payment challenge and _meta retry. This goes well beyond the default annotation hints and gives the agent accurate expectations for real-world invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but well organized: purpose and outputs first, then limits, pricing, payment flow, and a final read-only assurance. Every sentence adds unique value, and key constraints are front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with multiple chains, batching, payments, and output format, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it returns, how to pay, what to do on 402, and what side effects it will not have. Given the output schema exists, the absence of a detailed return schema in prose is not a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers address format, batching up to 5 addresses, chain enum, and Base default. The description adds practical meaning tied to parameters, such as batching up to 5 comma-separated addresses, pricing per batch size, and the x402 payment context. This supplements the schema without redundancy, earning a score above the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with 'Wallet-level due diligence for an EVM address' and enumerates specific checks, making the purpose explicit and differentiating it from the sibling tools (contract_source_check, token_risk_screen) by scope. It clearly names the resource type and what kind of output is produced.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete usage context: wallet-level screening, supported chains, batch limits, and payment expectations. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tools for contrast, but 'wallet-level' plus the listed contents makes the intended use clear. No exclusion criteria are provided, but none are critical given the strong contextual signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.