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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate limit of 20 calls/hour/IP, free querying, score bands, KYC implications, and the return of a full breakdown. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 structured with clear line breaks, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds actionable information: signals, pricing, rate limits, alternatives, score interpretation, and return format. It is long but dense and well-organized.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies all necessary operational context: cost, rate limits, alternative tool routing, score meaning, and KYC consequences. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter wallet_address is already described as 'The XRPL wallet address (r...) to score.' The description reinforces that any wallet can be scored but does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 'returns a 0–100 trust score for any wallet' on the XRPL, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling batch_wallet_trust_scores by naming that alternative directly.

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 provides strong usage context: it is free, rate-limited, and explicitly directs users to batch_wallet_trust_scores for multiple wallets. It does not explicitly contrast with related single-signal tools like check_wallet_kyc or check_wallet_sanctions, but the overall guidance is clear.

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