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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral context: this is a paid call costing $0.01 USDC via x402 and it names the underlying data sources (ScamSniffer+MEW). It omits failure behavior, rate limits, and what the result contains, but the pricing disclosure is meaningful value no structured field provides.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, cost, data sources, and scope with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost and sources but never describes the shape of the risk result (score, verdict, flags), leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response. Adequate but with a clear gap given the absence of structured output documentation.

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 wallet format, network enum, and the optional token relation. The description only echoes the optional token relation, which is baseline-appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('wallet risk check') and enumerates what it covers — drainer/phishing blacklists, on-chain profile, optional token relation. The 'wallet' focus distinguishes it from siblings like scv_honeypot and scv_approvals, though it never explicitly says how it differs from scv_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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (scv_scan, scv_honeypot) that an agent might confuse it with. The only usage signal is the implied 'check a wallet for risk' from the purpose statement.

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