x402_wallet_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uniquely discloses a cost of $0.10 per call via the x402 payment protocol, which is critical behavioral information. It also lists the specific data fields returned, giving a clear sense of the tool's read behavior. It does not mention failure modes or authentication details, but the cost disclosure is a strong plus.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that leads with the core action, enumerates the data items, and ends with cost. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what data is returned, the cost, and the payment protocol. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, but for a read-only wallet profile tool with transparent pricing, this is largely complete. A score of 4 recognizes the missing but non-critical details.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter with a description 'Ethereum wallet address (0x...)'. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as format validation, network specifics, or examples. According to the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 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?

The description starts with 'Get comprehensive wallet profile' which is a specific verb and resource, followed by a concrete list of included data (ETH balance, transaction count, timestamps, top 5 tokens). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_token_metrics or x402_gas_prices, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage context by detailing the wallet-specific data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no 'use this when...' or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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