kyt_screen_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full disclosure burden. It discloses the core behavior, return payload, speed, and auto-detection logic. It doesn't mention failure modes, rate limits, or network dependencies, but for a read-only screening tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action, data coverage, and output in the first two sentences, then adds contextual speed guidance. It earns its length, though the enumerated return fields make it slightly dense.

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)Skip{}... Actually, the tool lacks an output schemaache but important behavioral context. The description covers inputs, outputs, performance, and use-case timing. Missing only explicit comparison to sibling screening/lookup tools, which would make it 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a useful reiteration that chain is auto-detected and lists address formats, but this largely mirrors the schema rather than adding substantial new semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') with a clear resource ('a single wallet address'), enumerates the exact data sources consulted, and states the concrete output (risk score, signals, exposure, summary, recommendation). The tool is easily distinguished from siblings like case management or stats tools.

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?

It gives explicit contextual guidance: 'Use this BEFORE settling on-chain' and highlights the <200ms fast-path cache for sanctioned wallets. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools or state when to prefer alternatives like kyt_lookup_intel, leaving some selection judgment to the agent.

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