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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the billing model ($0.10 USDC per call, x402/prepaid), that it is excluded from the free trial, and that scoring extends to the wallet's top counterparties — a meaningful behavioural detail. It stops short of explaining latency, caching, or what a non-idempotent/billed repeat call means.

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 dense sentence plus a pricing sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and report contents. The enumerated deliverables are the tool's value proposition rather than filler, though the listing is long enough that it could be split for scanability.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and it still summarizes the report contents, verdicts, chains, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it and pass a valid address 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (chain enum and address format). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('AI due-diligence report on a wallet') and enumerates what it covers: holdings/USD value, activity, behaviour profile, sanctions/theft/phishing screen, verdict, analyst note. An agent knows exactly what this produces, though it never names how it differs from the many sibling wallet tools (wallet, wallet-deep, wallet-risk).

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 an explicit usage constraint — 'Paid only (not in the free trial)' with the price and payment rails (x402 or prepaid credits) — which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to call it. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over wallet-risk, wallet-deep, or wallet-report-cached, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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