check_address_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC), the real-time analysis nature, the specific checks performed, and the chain scope (Base L2). It also mentions payment_signature as an optional x402 hash or mock key, which hints at payment behavior. It doesn't state failure modes or reversibility, but for a read-only risk check, the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the cost and purpose. The Args section is redundant with the schema but adds semantic detail. It earns its place overall, though the cost line could be integrated more elegantly.

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 risk-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the checks performed, and the use case. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., risk score, boolean, report), which an agent would need to interpret the result. However, the description is otherwise complete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'address' as a 42-character 0x EVM wallet or contract, 'chain' as the target network with default base, and 'payment_signature' as an optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash or developer mock key. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about chain options (e.g., is Solana supported? The cost line mentions Solana but the description says Base L2).

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 evaluates on-chain wallet or smart contract risk before agent transactions, with a specific verb ('Evaluates') and resource ('on-chain wallet or smart contract'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_blockchain_address and scan_payload_safety by listing concrete checks (bytecode analysis, transaction velocity, throwaway detection, OFAC sanctions) and the target chain (Base L2).

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use before sending funds, approving token allowances, or executing third-party smart contracts.' It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for URL or payload safety, which are covered by siblings classify_url and scan_payload_safety). This is strong usage guidance.

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