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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the paid nature and first-call behavior but omits details like rate limits, failure modes (e.g., insufficient funds), or what the report exactly contains beyond listing risk signals.

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?

Two concise sentences with a critical note on payment. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff.

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 complexity of the tool (6+ risk signals, wallet profiling, token holdings) and no output schema, the description lacks details on the report's structure, data format, or how the signals are presented. It is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the payment flow for the optional payment_signature parameter, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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?

Clearly describes the tool as generating a comprehensive on-chain due-diligence report with multiple risk signals and wallet profiling. While it differentiates from siblings by focusing on risk, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_wallet_intel.

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?

Provides clear instructions on the payment flow: first call fetches payment requirements, second call includes payment signature. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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