score_counterparty

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the risk assessment nature, mentions sanctions list screening (OFAC/EU/UN), and details the return structure including score range (0-100) and response components. Could clarify if this makes external API calls or has side effects, but adequately covers the core behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, constraints, usage, args, returns). Front-loaded with critical constraints. Slightly verbose due to long wallet address examples, but every section provides necessary information without 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?

Given 6 parameters with complex financial domain concepts and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers input requirements, validation rules, and return value structure. Could elaborate on risk tier meanings or confidence scoring methodology, but sufficient for agent operation.

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%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args:' section documenting all 6 parameters with semantic meanings (e.g., company_name screens 'against OFAC/EU/UN sanctions lists') and concrete examples for each. This significantly exceeds the baseline requirement given the schema deficiency.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Score' + resource 'counterparty' + context 'before sending money', clearly defining the tool's function. No siblings exist to confuse with, but the description establishes a clear, specific purpose.

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?

Provides explicit constraints ('Only use data explicitly provided...', 'Do not fabricate input values'), explains the flexible input pattern ('Send any combination... At least one field is required'), and specifies when to use ('before sending money'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but none exist in this server.

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