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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns an agent-branchable verdict with specific values and compact risk summaries. It also reveals the underlying data domains considered, which helps the agent predict what the call will do beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Two sentences carry the full functional contract: the first defines what the tool assesses and the second defines its machine-consumable output. There is no filler or repetition of annotation/schema fields, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has a documented input schema, readOnly annotations, and an output schema referenced by the description, the description is largely complete: an agent knows the input, the scope, and the verdict format. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when this composite tool should be chosen over the narrower sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wallet_address and chain_ids, including the 'positions and net worth remain all-chain' nuance. The description reinforces that risk assessment spans approvals, liquidation health, and activity history, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Assess'), resource ('counterparty risk for an EVM address'), and scope ('across token approvals, liquidation health, and activity history'). It also names the exact verdict values it returns, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_liquidation_risk or get_token_approvals.

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 clearly implies this is the holistic counterparty-risk assessment tool by enumerating the dimensions it covers, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over individual sibling tools such as get_liquidation_risk, get_token_approvals, or get_wallet_history. There are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions, so the usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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