check_scammer_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively states the core function and adds critical context about cost ('Cost: $0.02'), which is not covered by schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, data sources, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds cost information efficiently in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and cost but lacks details on output format, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a scam-checking tool with financial implications.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as address format or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Check if a wallet belongs to') and the target resource ('known scammer, serial rugger, or flagged entity'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_blacklist' or 'check_token_risk' by focusing on wallet-level scammer identification rather than general blacklisting or token-specific risks.

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 implies usage context (checking wallets for scammer status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_blacklist' or 'get_serial_ruggers'. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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