Token approvals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description earns credit for adding scope context: it only covers well-known spenders and top ERC-20s (not an exhaustive enumeration) and it returns actionable revoke calldata plus a Revoke.cash link. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence using semicolons to separate the query from its two outputs. No filler, and every clause adds information.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is queried and what is returned, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps around result scope/detail.

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 the chain enum and owner format already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. no note on how 'top ERC-20s' is bounded per chain), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise query (which well-known spenders can spend an address's top ERC-20s) plus its outputs (flags unlimited approvals, returns revoke calldata and a Revoke.cash link). The verb+resource are unambiguous and the tool is clearly distinct from siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (a security review of an address's token approvals) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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