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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra disclosures carry the weight: real-time OFAC/UN/EU sanctions screening and, importantly, that the call is billed via x402 USDC micropayments. The payment requirement is a genuine behavioral trait absent from annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or failure/latency behavior.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and then the signals, screening, usage trigger, and billing model. Every sentence is informative, though the signal enumeration could be trimmed if brevity mattered more than completeness.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what the score means (0-100), how it is derived (7 named RPC signals), and what extra coverage exists (sanctions screening) — enough for an agent to act correctly. Minor gaps remain around latency, failure handling, and how the signed variant changes the response.

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 address, signed, and response_format fully; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions the signed-ECDSA option or the markdown/json output choice), so it does not exceed 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a 0-100 trust score for a Solana wallet address') and clearly scopes it to Solana, which is exactly what distinguishes it from the EVM, Stellar, and XRPL siblings. It even names the scoring methodology and provider, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage trigger ('Use before paying or interacting with any Solana wallet'), which tells the agent the decision context. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., prefer a cached/local check, or the sibling score tool for non-Solana chains), leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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