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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the check categories, that results come as a risk band plus findings, that it is advisory only, and the billing model ($0.01 per call via x402/USDC). It omits latency, rate limits, and what happens on unsupported chains, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly packed with relevant detail; no filler sentences. The dense semicolon-heavy phrasing slightly hurts scannability but every clause 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the return shape (risk band + findings) and per-chain scope, which is adequate for a single-parameter tool. Missing only edge-case behavior (unsupported chains, error/empty results).

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the input is a crypto address and that chain is inferred from the address (18 chains listed), but never states address format or behavior for unsupported/ambiguous addresses.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (sanctions screening and AML risk for a crypto address) and enumerates exactly what is checked per chain: OFAC sanctioned match, Bitcoin one-hop exposure, Solana account profile fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like solana_wallet_profile and token_safety without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter (screen an address for risk), and the caveat 'Screening aid, not a verdict' hints at how to treat results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., solana_wallet_profile for deeper Solana-only analysis) and no 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.