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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact checks performed, the output format (red/yellow/green with reasons), and chain coverage (EVM + Solana). It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements, but for a read-only risk check these are secondary.

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 front-loaded with the core question, followed by a compact list of checks, the return format, and chain support. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is checked, what the output looks like, and which chains are supported. Minor gaps like data recency or rate limits remain, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (chain enum and address format). The description adds only the phrase 'EVM chains + Solana', which broadly maps to the chain enum but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific question that defines the tool's job: assess a wallet address for safety and exposure. It enumerates the exact risk categories checked (scam, phishing, theft, sanctions, mixer links, malicious approvals, contract vs personal, poisoned look-alikes), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like check_token or get_wallet_balances.

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 first sentence gives a clear use case: deciding whether it is safe to send crypto to an address and whether the wallet is exposed. It does not explicitly name when to use alternatives (e.g., check_token for token contracts) or any exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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