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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses exact-match behavior, the two list sources, snapshot dates, returned fields, the meaning and limits of a 'clear' verdict, and the x402 payment cost. This gives an agent the operational context needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 front-loaded with the core question and screening purpose, then efficiently layers in sources, return values, caveat, and cost. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the purpose, invocation context, data sources, return semantics, interpretation caveat, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and understand the result correctly appears to be 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?

The input schema already documents the single address parameter at 100% coverage, including its 0x-prefixed 20-byte format. The description repeats the counterparty/recipient/spender framing but adds no additional parameter-level meaning 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 opens with a precise question and then states a specific verb and resource: pre-trade screening a wallet address for sanctions or scam status. It clearly distinguishes this screening operation from general wallet lookup siblings like chain_wallet by focusing on OFAC SDN and threat-intel list matching.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: before an agent sends, swaps, or approves, for a counterparty, recipient, or token-spender address. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when not to use this one, so it falls short of full explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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