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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup but never explicitly confirms read-only semantics, nor does it disclose any auth requirements, rate limits, chain coverage beyond Base/Ethereum, or latency. The truncated ending makes the disclosed behavior incomplete as well.

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 short, but it is structurally broken: it cuts off mid-sentence after '交易数、' (transaction count,), which is a sign of incompleteness rather than disciplined conciseness. Key information that a complete sentence would have carried is simply missing.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, yet it is truncated and silent on output format, which parameter to use, supported chains beyond the two named, and how it differs from at least five near-identical wallet/onchain siblings in the tool list. It is not adequate for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema's three parameters (agent, wallet, address) all carry boilerplate descriptions like 'Agent to process' and 'Address to process,' which add zero semantic value. The description mentions 'agent wallet address' but does not clarify how the three parameters relate — whether they are aliases, required fields, or mutually exclusive. With zero required parameters and three near-identical inputs, an agent cannot confidently know which to populate.

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 (查/query) and resource: it returns an agent's on-chain activity intelligence, specifically Base/Ethereum balances and transaction count for a given agent wallet address. This is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like wallet-balance or wallet-intel. However, the description is truncated — it ends mid-list with '交易数、' (transaction count,) — so the full scope of returned data is never stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous overlapping siblings such as wallet-intel, wallet-activity, wallet-scan, or onchain. No exclusions, no alternatives, and no conditions are given, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over closely related ones.

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