kyt_lookup_intel

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 discloses that the tool returns tiered labels (T1-T4) with source attribution, and indicates it is a lightweight lookup rather than a full screen. This conveys the operational behavior (cheap, focused) and the nature of the output, though it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or mention any side effects.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and primary return; the second adds the tier details and usage context. It is front-loaded, with no redundant information, and every clause contributes to decision-making.

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?

With a simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (tiered labels with source attribution) and when to use it. It does not describe error handling, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. An agent can confidently invoke it based on the provided information.

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%: the only parameter, 'address', is described as 'Wallet address to look up.' The description reinforces this without adding new details about the parameter itself. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter, and the description's context does not provide extra semantic value beyond confirming the purpose.

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 opens with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('known intelligence labels for an address'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a 'full screen'. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like kyt_screen_wallet, so an agent can quickly identify its niche.

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 states a clear usage condition: 'use when you only need to know whether an address is known,' and emphasizes it is 'cheaper than a full screen.' It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the context strongly implies kyt_screen_wallet. This is sufficient guidance for selecting between them, though a sibling mention would have been more explicit.

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