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

Discloses read-only nature and $0.01 USDC cost, which is valuable since no annotations exist. However, it doesn't mention what the posture check considers or whether it returns a score.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose, no wasted words.

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, no annotations, and no explanation of what the check returns or how to interpret results. Leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently.

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 0% and the description provides zero information about the wallet parameter or optional fields like intentId, referralCode, and sourceAgentId.

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?

Clearly states it's a read-only Base wallet account-posture check, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_token_risk (token-level) and check_base_swap (swap-level).

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?

Implies you use this for wallet-level risk assessment on Base, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead of token or swap risk checks.

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