Reads ONE address across 10 EVM chains in a single call, sho

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call is paid, uses public on-chain data, returns sources and an evidence hash, and intentionally omits risk scoring. This is consistent with the annotations; the payment signature is a side effect, so readOnlyHint=false is not contradicted. It does not detail the exact payment flow, but the schema already covers that.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The essential constraints (one address, 10 chains, paid, no risk scoring) are front-loaded, and the sibling pointer earns its place. Nothing in the description is redundant or unnecessary.

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-parameter tool, the description covers the operation scope, cost, output characteristics (sources and evidence hash), and what it does not do. Since there is no output schema, the description gives enough about return content for an agent to interpret results. The guidance to use wallet_brief for risk scoring completes the selection context.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters at 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The description reinforces 'ONE address' and the paid quote, but it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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 clear verb and object: reads a single address across ten EVM chains and reports where it holds funds and is active. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying it does not do risk scoring and pointing to genesis402_wallet_brief. No ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 says when to use it: to find where an address is active before drilling into one chain. It names the alternative for risk scoring ('use genesis402_wallet_brief for that'), so an agent can make a correct tool-selection decision. The paid nature is also front-loaded as a usage prerequisite.

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