Wallet risk signals in ONE call

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: false and openWorldHint: true, but the description adds valuable context: it is paid (price from live quote), uses heuristic signals from public data, and explicitly disclaims KYC, compliance determination, and legal advice. It also mentions the output includes sources and an evidence hash. This goes beyond the annotations and covers important behavioral aspects, though it could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., payment processing), which is partially covered in the parameter description.

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 informative and well-structured: it front-loads the paid nature and the core value, then gives usage context, and ends with alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long. It is not wasteful and remains clear.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions that the result lists its sources and an evidence hash. It covers usage context, alternatives, and the paid flow. It does not detail the exact format of the summary or error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect. With no output schema, this is a solid 4.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not re-explain parameters but adds context about the chain coverage ('10-chain EVM balance/activity scan') and the payment_signature ('Omit to get the price quote first; nothing is charged without it' is in the schema, but the description reinforces the paid nature). This is minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Wallet risk signals in ONE call' including a sanctions-list check, 10-chain EVM scan, and plain-language summary with an evidence hash. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming specific alternatives for narrower use cases, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use before sending funds to or accepting funds from an unknown address') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('For a sanctions check alone use genesis402_screen_sanctions (cheaper); for raw balances alone use genesis402_multi_chain_scan'). It also mentions the paid nature and the flow of getting a quote first.

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