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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the scoring model's behavior (scam addresses 90-100, exchanges/bridges 0-20, unknown 50). The unknown=50 disclosure is especially valuable because it warns the agent that an unlabeled address is not evidence of risk. It omits performance/latency, coverage limits, and data freshness, keeping it at 4.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the interpretation guide, then the call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place and none restates structured fields.

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 correctly compensates by explaining how to read the returned score, including the ambiguous unknown=50 case. It leaves minor gaps around chain coverage and whether scores are cached/live, but an agent has enough to call 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the address format ('EVM address (0x + 40 hex)'). The description adds no syntax, chain, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get a risk score for an address') and immediately scopes it with the 0-100 range and data source ('100K+ labeled address database'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_address_label, which returns labels rather than a scored risk verdict.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use this BEFORE sending funds to verify the destination.' That is a clear when-to-use cue. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_address_label for labeling only) or stating when not to bother, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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