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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the call costs credit (a billing/quota constraint) and returns raw data rather than a verdict. It still omits error behavior for unsupported chains, rate limits, and auth requirements, but read-only semantics are strongly implied by 'return the raw risk markers'.

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 sentences, the return payload front-loaded followed by the usage cue and the cost note. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly via the marker list. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior such as unsupported address formats or partial data, which are minor for a single-argument read tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the address and its supported chains (TRON, Ethereum, EVM, Solana). The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 correct.

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 (return) plus the exact resource (raw risk markers for one address) and enumerates the constituent markers: risk zone, blacklists, sanctions, scam DBs, reports, age, balance, exchange attribution. The phrase 'one address' cleanly separates it from the sibling onyx_screen_batch, and 'the facts rather than a decision' separates it from onyx_decide.

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?

Explicitly names the selection condition: use it when you want raw facts rather than a decision, which routes the agent away from onyx_decide. The batch alternative is only implied by 'one address' rather than named, so the when-not guidance is slightly incomplete.

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