inspect_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses a concrete cost ($0.001 USDC on Base & Solana), the seven supported chains, and that format detection is automatic. It stops short of describing payment mechanics, rate limits, or failure behavior for unsupported formats, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Cost and scope are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle 'Keywords:' sentence is pure search-term stuffing that adds no invocation value, and the opener ('Universal multi-chain ... oracle') partly restates the closing sentence. Removing the keyword block would lose nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value enumeration is not required, and the description still signals the payload shape (balances, bytecode, risk scores) plus cost. For a cheap read-only inspection tool the coverage is close to complete; only multi-chain caveats and the optional risk-scoring toggle remain unaddressed.

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, and it largely does: 'auto-detects format' explains the chain default of 'auto', 'wallets or smart contracts' clarifies acceptable address values, and 'includes sanctions/drainer risk scores' maps to include_risk_scoring. It never confirms that include_risk_scoring can be disabled to skip that work, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspects cryptocurrency wallets or smart contracts on-chain') and enumerates exactly what it returns: format auto-detection, native/USDC balances, bytecode existence, and sanctions/drainer risk scores. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from near-neighbors like check_address_risk or inspect_blockchain_address without opening the schema.

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 lists keywords such as 'check address risk' and 'sanctions screener' but never says when to choose this tool over the sibling check_address_risk or inspect_blockchain_address, nor states any preconditions. Usage is only implied by the enumerated capabilities, and the crowded sibling list makes explicit routing guidance genuinely necessary here.

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