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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds critical behavioral context beyond them: the tool is PAID ($0.10/call), requires an x402 payment flow, and only charges when a result returns. It also discloses the heuristic nature ('Holdings exposure heuristics') and its exclusions, which materially shapes how an agent should invoke and trust it.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the most critical fact (PAID), then the purpose, then exclusions and the payment workflow. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details that are already visible.

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 paid two-step tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, what it returns, the payment prerequisites, the exact payload setting, and the charge policy. The 'NOT AML' disclaimer prevents misuse. No obvious gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of x402_payment in the two-step call flow and clarifying that wallet refers to a Solana wallet, which helps an agent sequence calls correctly. This goes beyond the schema but is not exhaustive about parameter formats beyond what schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('Wallet risk-exposure read for a Solana wallet') and details the outputs: largest holdings graded through the verdict path, exposure counts by risk tier, and a rug-ledger cross-check. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly stating it is NOT AML attribution or sanctions screening, removing ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives an explicit two-step usage protocol: call once without x402_payment to get payment requirements, then call again with the payment payload. It also clearly states a when-not (not AML/sanctions screening) and the charging condition. However, it does not name sibling tools or specify when to use them instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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