Counterparty risk score (0-100; LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/UNKNOWN) for any Base wallet — wash + hub detection + automation score + known-entity labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x... Base wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the output components (wash, hub, automation score, labels) but does not mention if the tool is read-only, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single sentence that packs key information (range, categories, components) efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly structured formatting (e.g., listing components) would improve readability.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return format (score range, category labels, and components). For a simple one-parameter tool, this covers the essential aspects, though it omits error cases or usage context.
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 single parameter 'address' is described in the schema as '0x... Base wallet address'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 counterparty risk score with a specific range (0-100) and categories (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/UNKNOWN), along with additional details like wash/hub detection and labels. This is distinct from sibling tools like screen_wallet or agent_pulse, which focus on different analyses.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screen_wallet or real_agent_index. The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or contextual triggers for invoking the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools have distinct purposes: agent_pulse for active agent counts, counterparty_risk for wallet risk scores, screen_wallet for sybil detection, etc. However, counterparty_risk and screen_wallet both analyze wallets, causing slight overlap that descriptions mitigate.
All tool names use snake_case, but they mix patterns: verb_noun (screen_wallet), noun_noun (index_stats), and compound nouns (real_agent_index). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
6 tools is a well-scoped set for an analytics server covering agents, wallet risk, and settlement data without being over or under.
Covers core aspects: macro metrics, per-wallet analysis, and settlement tapes. Missing a tool to list all known agents, but overall coverage is solid for transparency on AI agent activity.