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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool scans for activity and risk, with no disclosure of output format, network behavior, side effects, or requirements. This is minimal and barely goes beyond the tool's name.

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 only one short sentence and is easily scannable, but it begins with the redundant label 'Wallet Scan:' which restates the tool name. It is concise but under-specified; the structure is acceptable but not every word earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, three ambiguous optional parameters, and heavy overlap among sibling wallet tools, the one-sentence description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine what input to pass, what response to expect, or how to distinguish this call from wallet-activity or wallet-intel.

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 has three optional parameters (input, wallet, address) with descriptions that merely echo their names ('Input to process', 'Wallet to process', 'Address to process'). These add no real meaning, the tool description does not clarify which to use or how they relate, and no format or example is given. Effective semantic coverage is near zero.

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 clear action ('Scan a wallet') and scope ('activity and risk'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like wallet-activity, wallet-intel, or wallet-report, which likely overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and never mentions any exclusions or conditions. The large sibling list includes several wallet-related tools, yet no hint is given for selecting this one.

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