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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: pay-per-call pricing ($0.02 USDC), the data sources used (existence, activity, USDC settlements, contract code), and that facts are re-verifiable on-chain. It omits failure behavior, latency, and what happens if payment/verdict fails, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the call-to-action constraint ('BEFORE paying') leads, followed by the verdict, scope, and cost. Every clause adds information, with no 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?

For a low-complexity verdict tool with full schema coverage, the description covers trigger timing, verdict outcomes, supported chains, data provenance, and cost. No output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required, though the integration context (how to pay the call) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'target' (address format) and 'chain' (enum, optional/inferred) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or inference detail beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource+output: it returns a 'safe|review|avoid verdict' for a wallet/payee, and it names the covered chains (Solana, Base, Polygon) and the fact basis. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling 'risk_check' (and 'solana_risk_check'), so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

'BEFORE paying a wallet/payee' gives a clear situational trigger, which is useful context. But it never says when NOT to use it or points to the obvious alternative (risk_check/solana_risk_check), leaving the agent to guess which checker to invoke.

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