get_address_suspicious_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the cost (50 credits), the fact it is a read-only retrieve operation, and the output categories (risk scores, levels, categories). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, whether the query can fail for unknown addresses, or how the suspicious activity is determined beyond the categories. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with one sentence on purpose, then a clear Args list with examples, and a single cost line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague filler. The front-loading of the main purpose is effective.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It states the protocols, the address format, the cost, and what the response contains (risk scores, levels, categories). The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but this is partially covered by purpose clarity. The output schema covers the return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail it.

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 for the missing parameter details. The Args section provides explicit explanations: 'proto' lists all supported blockchain protocols (btc, eth, xlm, xmr, etc.), and 'address' provides a concrete example. This fully clarifies the meaning and acceptable values for both parameters, going well beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve suspicious activity associated with a blockchain address, along with related risk scores, levels, and categories.' The verb 'retrieve' is specific, the resource is a blockchain address, and the additional outputs (risk scores, levels, categories) differentiate it from sibling tools like get_address_risk_score or get_address_label.

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 implies the tool is for querying suspicious activities for a given address, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_address_risk_score or get_address_stats. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned; usage context must be inferred from the name and description.

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