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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and is exceptionally transparent: it flags the $0.02 charge, notes that risk intelligence is unavailable unless a trusted provider is configured, says results are cautious and low-confidence rather than a safety certification, and warns not to send private keys or seed phrases.

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 defining cost and purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a meaningful caveat or safety note. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but not wasteful.

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 paid, security-relevant tool with an output schema, the description covers when to call it, what it verifies, cost, limitations, and safety constraints. Nothing needed to invoke it appropriately is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning Base and address at a high level. It does not explain that chain selects base vs base-sepolia or elaborate on address format, leaving the schema constraints to carry the meaning.

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 names a specific operation—a paid wallet risk check—and states exactly what it does: checks whether an address is a wallet or contract and reads basic on-chain metadata. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_url and check_package by resource and use case.

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?

It gives concrete triggers: call before sending funds, accepting value, granting approvals, or interacting with an unfamiliar address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the trigger list is clear enough.

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