wallet_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists return fields (risk_score, sanctions_hit, etc.) and implies read-only behavior, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or behavior for non-eth chains. It adds value but leaves gaps.

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 three sentences: first states output, second lists fields, third gives usage. No wasted words, efficient structure, front-loaded with key 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are partially covered. However, the description lacks explanation for the chain parameter and ambiguity about 'any Ethereum address' vs. chain default. Given the moderate complexity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, but the description does not explain the address parameter format or validation, nor does it mention the chain parameter (default eth) or its values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 it returns a wallet risk score for an Ethereum address, lists specific outputs, and provides a concrete use case. It distinguishes from siblings like defi_risk (which likely focuses on DeFi protocol risks) by being wallet-specific.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use before transacting with an unknown counterparty or screening a wallet for compliance.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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