check_wallet_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main actions (analyze, checks, provides recommendations) and scope ('Supports any EVM address on Base'), but does not mention read-only nature, data sources, rate limits, or output format. No contradictions found.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then providing specific details. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient information to invoke it correctly: the purpose, the input, and the key features. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is not required given the simplicity.

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% with a basic description for wallet_address. The tool description adds the crucial constraint that it supports 'any EVM address on Base', clarifying the accepted input format beyond the schema. This extra context elevates the score above the baseline.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Analyze wallet exposure and portfolio risk across DeFi protocols', with specific features (concentrated positions, protocol risks, diversification recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_token_risk and scan_defi_yields, which focus on narrower concerns.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs its siblings. It lists capabilities but does not state conditions like 'use for portfolio-level risk' or alternatives such as 'for single-token risk, use scan_token_risk'. The intended use case is only implied.

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