verify_agent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a verification tool, non-destructive nature should be implied, but it is not stated.

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?

Two sentences that are concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contain no unnecessary words.

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 (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and return values (composite score, individual signals, risk flags, recommendations). It lacks details on response format but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and outcomes.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'address' with a regex pattern. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining what types of addresses are supported or any format restrictions).

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?

Clearly states the action (verify), resource (AI agent or wallet address), and outputs (composite score, individual scores, risk flags, recommendations). Briefly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'full 6-signal', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_verify or check_scam.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before transacting with or delegating to an unknown agent.' However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives like batch_verify for multiple addresses.

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