pathguard

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is checked (scams, address mistakes, risk signals) but not whether any state is mutated, what happens to the address, whether it requires auth, or how results are returned. For a risk-check tool this is thin.

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?

Single tight sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. Adequately sized for what it covers, though it could do more.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations. The description is too sparse for a multi-parameter risk-assessment tool; an agent cannot confidently know how to fill chain or amount, or what the response looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter meaning. It implies an address is checked but doesn't explain 'chain' (default EVM) or what 'amount' is used for, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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?

Clear verb 'check' and resource 'crypto transaction', with scope spelled out (scams, address mistakes, risk signals). Distinguishes from sibling check_transactions_batch by implication (singular, one transaction), but doesn't name it explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs preflight_transaction, check_transactions_batch, or report_scam_address. The word 'check' suggests a read-only inspection, but the agent must infer this; no when/when-not or alternatives are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does usefully disclose the default output shape and the rationale (avoid overwhelming agent context). It omits other operationally important traits for a 1,000-item batch call: partial-failure semantics, rate limits, timeouts, or cost. Partial but not complete disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the parameter guidance following. The second sentence's rationale is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining the default output behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should cover return shape, and it only partially does (summary vs full). Combined with zero schema coverage on the nested `items` structure, an agent lacks enough information to construct a correct request or interpret partial 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains detail_level's effect and default, but the required `items` parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties:true and the description never says what fields a transaction item must contain, leaving the most important input dimension undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb (Check), a specific resource (crypto transactions), and a scope boundary (up to 1,000 in one request), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling check_transaction. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the batch-vs-single split.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance for the detail_level parameter ('set full when individual results are needed'), which is real usage advice. However, it never says when to prefer this batch tool over the sibling check_transaction or preflight_transaction, nor does it state any prerequisites, so tool-level selection is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status lookup but never says so, and adds nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether quota figures are real-time. For a zero-parameter tool the disclosure requirement is modest, but the safety profile is left to inference.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned information with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less tool, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (plan, quota, usage), which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of confirming read-only behavior or the response shape, but the gap is small.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 ('Check') and the exact resources retrieved: current plan, monthly scan quota, and usage. It is clearly distinct from the transaction-oriented siblings (check_transaction, preflight_transaction, report_scam_address), though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the content — an agent can infer this is for checking plan/quota state — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to related tools. No prerequisites or frequency guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the three decision outcomes (ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK), which is real behavioral context. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, what checks actually run, whether any state is written, and whether it requires auth or an API key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, scope, and return values; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the decision-value mention is valuable, but for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions the definition leaves too much unstated: parameter meaning, invocation prerequisites, and the nature of the checks.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The agent gets no guidance on chain values, the address/amount relationship, or when raw_amount_input should be used instead of amount.

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 ('run transaction checks') and resource ('transaction'), plus the decision output vocabulary. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_transaction or explain how 'full' checks differ, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given, despite three plausible siblings (check_transaction, check_transactions_batch, report_scam_address). The agent must guess whether this is the pre-execution gate or a general-purpose check.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether reports are public, require authorization, are rate-limited, reversible, or what happens after submission — all critical for a mutation-style tool interacting with a community system.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, expected response, and parameter semantics, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so all three parameters (address, chain, reason) are undocumented. The description does not add any meaning to these parameters, such as address format expectations, valid chain values, or whether reason is optional context.

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 states a specific verb ('report') and resource ('suspected scam address') and names the target system ('PathGuard's community reporting system'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_transaction or preflight_transaction, which perform checks rather than reports, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_transaction or preflight_transaction. An agent cannot infer whether reporting is a precursor to or substitute for those checks, leaving usage conditions entirely unstated.

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