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

No annotations exist; the description carries full burden. It discloses data sources (Blockscout, DexScreener, OFAC list), supported chains, payment requirement, and bundled nature. Missing details on caching, rate limits, or error handling, but overall informative.

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?

The description is somewhat repetitive (e.g., same information stated twice) and includes a grammatically awkward sentence ('where primitives serve one field per call this returns...'). It could be more concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and few parameters, the description covers inputs, output content, payment, and supported chains. It lacks output format or error behavior, but provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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 both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description merely restates 'Input: wallet address + chain' without adding new semantic context, meeting the baseline.

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 the tool performs wallet risk analysis, returning native + ERC-20 balances, USD portfolio valuation, token count, and an OFAC sanctions flag. It distinguishes itself from 'primitives' that serve one field per call, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 description identifies target users ('on-chain analysis, compliance and trading agents') and mentions cost ($0.05 per call via x402). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus specific siblings or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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