bulk_address_risk_score

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the cost (100 credits) and the address count limits (1-10). These are useful operational details. However, it does not mention error handling, address validation, or potential rate limits, which would make it more transparent.

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 tightly structured: a headline sentence states the core function, followed by a labeled Args section and a one-line cost note. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The description adds essential context: batch size limits, allowed protocols, and cost. It stops short of being fully complete by not addressing edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses, partial failures), but for a straightforward batch retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: the 'proto' parameter is given an explicit list of allowed protocols, and 'addresses' is clarified as a list with a 1-10 count limit. This is exactly the missing meaning that the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('address risk scores, risk levels, and categories') for 'multiple blockchain addresses'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_address_risk_score' by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'up to 10' in one request.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case: querying multiple addresses in a single batch. It implies that this tool is for multi-address queries, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative (e.g., 'get_address_risk_score' for a single address).

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