Assess a wallet's KYT (Know-Your-Transaction) risk: sanctions + entity classification + VASP/jurisdiction score + cluster context → one risk verdict (critical / high / medium / low / unknown) with flags. Paid per call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain ID, uppercase — e.g. ETH, BTC, TRON, SOL, BSC, POLYGON, ARBITRUM, BASE. | |
| address | Yes | Wallet address to assess (format must match the chain). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not repeat that. It adds a significant behavioral detail: the call is paid per call via x402, which is not in annotations and informs cost/usage decisions. It also clarifies the output is a single verdict with flags, giving behavioral expectations beyond the annotation hints.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the action ('Assess'), details inputs, and specifies output categories and cost. No filler or repetition; every phrase adds value.
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?
The tool has no output schemaational schema, so the description must convey expected output. It mentions 'risk verdict' with categories and flags, but does not explain what the flags mean or how the verdict should be interpreted. Given the complexity of KYT risk, an agent might need more detail to act on results. Sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is provided.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (chain ID and address). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that address is a wallet address scroll. It is minimally adequate, meeting the baseline for well-documented 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 explicitly states the tool assesses a wallet's KYT risk and enumerates its components (sanctions, entity classification, VASP/jurisdiction score, cluster context) and the output (risk verdict with flags). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like kyt_tx (transaction-level) by specifying wallet-level assessment.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like kyt_tx or screen_address. The only context is that it is 'paid per call via x402', which hints at cost but does not help an agent choose between alternatives. The description implies wallet-level scope, but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools cover distinct workflows: freeze status, freeze history, token approvals, token security, KYT for addresses and transactions, screening, verdicts, and chain listing. Some overlap exists between risk-related tools (kyt_risk, screen_address, oracle_verdict), but descriptions and parameters clearly differentiate their inputs and outputs.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, list_*, screen_*), but three use non-verb prefixes: kyt_risk, kyt_tx, and oracle_verdict. The mix is readable and intuitive, yet not fully uniform.
Nine tools is well within the sweet spot for a domain-specific server. Each tool addresses a distinct analytical need (freeze checks, approval audits, KYT, security simulation), and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The surface covers the main workflows for blockchain risk analysis: current and historical freeze checks, token approvals, token security simulation, KYT for addresses and transactions, entity-label screening, and a consumer verdict. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct balance or general transaction history), but these are orthogonal to the server's stated purpose and do not create dead ends.
