Aggregated A–F risk profile for a Polygon wallet. Combines on-chain behavior (pg_wallet_lookup), entity resolution (pg_wallet_entity_resolve), and — where the entity can be screened — AML bundle (sanctions + PEP + adverse media via AMLOracle). Grade A = clean, F = blocked. Includes triggered flags with points deductions for full auditability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Polygon address (0x + 40 hex chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden and discloses the composite nature, the grading scale (A=clean, F=blocked), dependence on entity screening availability, and the auditability feature (triggered flags with points). It does not mention side effects, errors, or performance, but the read-only nature is implied through the 'risk profile' framing.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It is a model of concise, information-dense writing.
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 covers the tool's purpose, data sources, grading scale, and output features (flags/points), giving a solid basis for selection. It falls short of detailing the exact output structure or edge-case behavior, but since no output schema exists, the level of detail is adequate for most decision-making.
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?
The schema documents the only parameter 'address' with full format details (0x + 40 hex chars), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool provides an aggregated A–F risk profile for a Polygon wallet, enumerating the combined data sources (pg_wallet_lookup, pg_wallet_entity_resolve, and AMLOracle) and defining grade meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling wallet and screening tools which focus on individual aspects.
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 explains that the tool aggregates on-chain behavior, entity resolution, and AML screening, implying it should be used when a comprehensive risk score is needed rather than calling the underlying lookup tools separately. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.