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

Beyond the safe-read annotations, the description discloses operational behavior: it is priced per call, runs over x402 on Base, supports a prepaid header for credits, offers a free daily call, and requires no wallet or API key. It also clarifies that the audit is AI-generated by Claude, which is useful expectations-setting for an agent.

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 text is front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome, then covers usage context, required input, and cost/access in compact clauses. The pricing and header details add length but are decision-relevant; still, the hook phrase is slightly redundant with the second sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with a rich output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs at a high level, use case, cost, payment method, and prerequisites. There is no needed context an agent would lack for selecting and invoking it.

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 only parameter, address, is already described as 'Wallet address.' The description reiterates that address is required but adds no format, chain, or normalization details beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 opens with a concrete outcome ('What can drain this wallet — and what to revoke') and states a specific verb-resource pair: pull a wallet's active token approvals and produce a security audit with risk level, USD at risk, and revoke recommendations. This is clearly differentiated from sibling tools by focusing on token approvals and revocation rather than generic address or contract intelligence.

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 explicitly defines when to use it: 'The wallet-safety check agents and users run before trusting an address.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5, but the trigger condition is concrete.

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