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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call is a priced x402 request ($0.195 USDC), it supports Base and Solana, and it computes a bounded 0-100 score. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences and packs in the acronym, core behavior, score range, pricing, payment rail, and supported networks. It is front-loaded with purpose and has no filler. The first sentence is slightly dense, but every phrase earns its place.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description completes the picture by disclosing the paid nature and supported networks. It does not dwell on return values because an output schema exists. Minor missing context is limited to explicit guidance on choosing this tool over the closely related security.honeypot_check.

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%: both 'address' and 'network' are documented with clear descriptions and the network enum is provided. The tool description adds no param-level meaning beyond mentioning Base/Solana and the general notion of a wallet address. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly names a specific verb ('Evaluates') and a concrete resource: agent wallet history, drainer interactions, and honeypot approvals, culminating in a 0-100 Trust Score. It is functionally distinguishable from siblings like security.honeypot_check, though it does not explicitly call out the distinguishing sibling. The meaning of the KYA acronym is also explained.

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 intended use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs a wallet safety or trust score on Base or Solana. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over security.honeypot_check or other security siblings, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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