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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the tool combines public data sources, returns an AI analyst profile plus underlying facts, includes no private labels, and is paid via x402 USDC on Base. It also mentions a free sample endpoint and the exact payment metadata field.

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 long but front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then organized into concrete data components, output format, example, and payment details. Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, every section adds useful invocation or interpretation value.

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?

The description compensates for the absence of an output schema by showing a representative output object with schema name, riskLevel, profile, evidence, recommendation, and facts. It also covers payment requirements and data-source limitations, making it complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage as an EVM address. The description reinforces the EVM address scope but does not add format, validation, or syntax details beyond what the 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 clearly identifies the resource as a wallet/counterparty intelligence dossier and enumerates the exact components included: security flags, multi-chain holdings, account age, ENS, transfers, counterparties, and x402 seller status. It is easy to distinguish from a simple balance lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as base_wallet_profile, wallet_portfolio, or x402_precheck.

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 clear usage context: use it before paying, accepting funds from, or trading with an EVM address. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower checks, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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