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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, providing baseline safety. The description adds useful behavioral details: the $0.02 USDC cost, the resolution to allow/review/block, and the per-signal detail in output. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't describe all possible behaviors.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver all key information: purpose, specific signals, output format, and cost. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs, processing, outputs, and cost. It provides a complete picture for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description (EVM address or Solana pubkey). The tool description does not add extra syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: a risk pre-flight for agent payments combining OFAC SDN sanctions and address reputation, yielding an allow/review/block recommendation. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from sibling tools like intel_wallet and investigate_wallet, which likely provide broader or deeper analysis.

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 phrase 'pre-flight for agent payments' clearly indicates when to use the tool (before making payments). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough. A 4 is appropriate because it gives a clear use case without exclusions.

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