Wash/sybil screen for any Base wallet — real autonomous agent or fake-volume sybil? Returns a calibrated sybil_score (0-100), confidence, and the reasons. Use before an agent trusts or pays a counterparty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x... Base wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output structure (score, confidence, reasons) but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or prerequisites. The agent is left guessing about potential impacts.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the input, output, and usage context. However, it could benefit from clarifying the score interpretation or the nature of the screening process to fully prepare the agent.
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 sole parameter 'address' is already described in the schema as '0x... Base wallet address', which covers its meaning. The description reinforces 'any Base wallet' but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 screens Baset wallets for sybil behavior, returning a score and reasons. The verb 'screen' and explicit output details make purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like counterparty_risk, which may overlap.
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 includes a usage hint ('Use before an agent trusts or pays a counterparty'), providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like counterparty_risk.
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.