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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that in a genuinely useful way by disclosing the full commercial/auth model: $0.15 per call over x402 on Base, a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, and no API key. That is exactly the kind of non-annotation behavior an agent needs before invoking.

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 pricing sentence is front-loadable but sits at the end, and the core idea — 'which of the things you already hold could hurt you' — is stated twice in nearly identical wording. The redundant restatement costs marks even though the overall length is reasonable.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly covers scope, auth/payment, and the risk-check nature of the call. The only missing piece is explicit routing against similar wallet-audit siblings, which would make it fully 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'address'. The description's 'Required input: address' adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'audit a whole wallet', 'pulls a wallet's holdings and runs a risk check on each' — and specifies what it flags (honeypots, high-risk, illiquid, USD at risk). This distinguishes it from plain portfolio-listing tools in the sibling set, though it never names the nearest alternatives (ai_wallet_security, agent_wallet_audit, wallet_portfolio) to sharpen the boundary.

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 'One call audits the whole wallet' and the risk-oriented framing, which tells the agent this is for holdings you already own rather than a trade preflight. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for related questions like net worth or token lists.

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