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

Annotations are none, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the behavioral traits: it is PAID ($0.10/call), charges only when a result actually comes back, requires a two-step payment flow, and outputs a verdict path. This is a comprehensive disclosure of the tool's cost, payment mechanism, and output structure, which is essential for an agent to avoid unexpected charges.

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 reasonably concise for the complexity, but it front-loads the pricing and key differentiators early. Each sentence adds value: it states the purpose, cost, what it is not, and the payment flow. It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient without waste.

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 complexity (payment flow, multiple risk checks, cost), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the payment prerequisites, what is returned (verdict path, exposure counts, cross-check), and the cost. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the return format. An agent can call this tool 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that x402_payment is the base64 payload from the payment step and that the wallet is a Solana wallet address. However, it doesn't detail format specifics like that the wallet must be base58 (though schema says that), but the description does add the payment flow context for the parameter.

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 specific verb (read) and resource (wallet risk-exposure), and details what it does: grading largest holdings, exposure counts by risk tier, and a rug-ledger symbol cross-check. It also distinguishes itself from AML attribution or sanctions screening, and the sibling list includes tools like token_risk_verdict and token_risk_deep, but this one is about wallet-level exposure, making it distinct.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: call once without x402_payment to receive payment requirements, then pay and call again with the payload. It also clarifies what it is NOT (not AML attribution or sanctions screening), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool vs alternatives. This is a clear when-to-use and how-to-use guide.

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