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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the per-call cost, payment method (USDC via x402), and the 33-chain scope. However, it does not disclose the output format, potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies anything), or any limitations or error conditions. This is a reasonable but not exhaustive 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?

The description is concise at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost/payment details placed after. Every word adds information, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description could benefit from explaining what the result looks like (e.g., risk score, boolean flag). However, for a screening tool with one required parameter, the description covers the purpose, scope, and cost adequately. It does not explain prerequisites or limitations, but these are not critical for a simple call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by stating the cost per call, which is directly relevant to the subscription_token parameter's purpose (using plan quota instead of paying). This goes slightly beyond the schema's basic descriptions, providing operational context for parameter selection.

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 clearly states the tool's verb (screen), resource (wallet address), and specific actions (OFAC SDN sanctions, risk scoring, suspicious-activity detection) across a defined scope (33 EVM chains). This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools, which target different assets (tokens, media, etc.).

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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use the tool ('Check a counterparty before you transact with it') and mentions the cost and payment method, which is an important operational consideration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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