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

Annotations already say read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: cost ($0.005 USDC per call via x402), the exact billing rule (charged only when a result is returned; 400 and 4xx/5xx are not settled), the upstream data sources read, and the limitation that this is heuristic, not a simulation or audit.

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?

Front-loaded with the three questions it answers and what it reads, then pricing and error handling at the end, so the important detail comes first. It is a single long block, and the middle section that lists contract features is dense enough that it would read better as a list.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does: a verdict (high_risk, caution, no_flags), a risk score, and the reasons. It also covers failure modes (wallet address error, 400/5xx not charged), which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: the `address` must be a contract with code (a wallet address is an error), and the chain scope (Base or Ethereum) determines which DEX liquidity sources are used (Aerodrome only on Base).

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?

Names the exact resource (an ERC-20 contract on Base or Ethereum), the exact action (reads code, owner, proxy, privileged powers, DEX liquidity, OFAC screening, returns a verdict) and the question it answers. It also separates itself from adjacent siblings by declaring that a wallet address with no code is an error, which distinguishes it from wallet_risk_check.

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?

States the decision point clearly: use it before an agent buys, accepts or lists a token. It also states what it is not ("Heuristics, not a sell simulation or audit") and that wallet addresses are invalid input. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling to use instead for other cases.

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