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

The description discloses the cost (Paid $0.03 USDC), the heuristic nature of signals, and disclaimers that it is not KYC, compliance, or legal advice. It also mentions an evidence hash. These go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and inform the agent of important behavioral aspects.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The cost is front-loaded, followed by the core function and a clear disclaimer. Every clause adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and key disclaimers, but lacks details on return structure (no output schema), the meaning of 'evidence hash', and when to use this vs. individual sibling tools. For a paid, multi-faceted tool, more completeness would be expected, though it is not severely deficient.

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 low at 33% (only payment_signature has a description). The description does not explain what chain or address are for, nor how they relate to the listed components. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the sparse parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Wallet risk signals in ONE call' and enumerates components (sanctions-list check, 10-chain scan, activity, summary) with an evidence hash. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the combined, single-call nature, setting it apart from individual tools like screen_sanctions or multi_chain_scan.

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 phrase 'in ONE call' implies a comprehensive alternative to making separate calls, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, such as when only a specific check is needed, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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