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

With annotations already covering the read-only and open-world profile, the description still adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: the upstream data source, the staleness limitation, and the exact cost model ($0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls free). The charge-on-success detail is materially useful for an agent deciding whether to spend a call.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is being checked, how to read the answer, and what it costs. The core question is front-loaded and the pricing trail is last, matching the order an agent needs the 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers source, coverage, return shape in prose, staleness caveat, and payment terms. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to interpret the answer 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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'query' parameter is already fully documented with an example format. The description corroborates the accepted input types (wallet addresses, phishing domains with linked addresses) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb-plus-resource framing: a yes/no membership check against the ScamSniffer community blacklist for a wallet address or phishing domain. It names the data source (public GitHub scam database) and the exact payload returned (listed yes/no plus list size), which separates it cleanly from siblings like agent_intel_typosquat_phishing_domain_radar or agent_intel_ofac_sanctions_preflight.

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 clear interpretive guidance — a 'no' does not prove safety and the list is not real-time — which tells an agent how much weight to place on the result. What it does not do is name an alternative tool for cases where the blacklist is insufficient, so the agent must infer from the sibling list rather than being routed explicitly.

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