Batch-screen up to 25 addresses (paid, x402 $0.01)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description carries the critical extras — it moves REAL money, needs OCEANALT_PAYER_KEY, costs $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet (eip155:8453), the price/network should be confirmed at a live URL, and a dedicated low-balance wallet is advised. This is exactly the beyond-annotation disclosure that matters for an irreversible paid call.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then cost rationale, then the payment mechanics. The $0.01 figure appears in both the title and body, and the payment block is dense, but nearly every clause earns its place given the money-at-risk.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract (verdict enum, risk score, blocked flag, top signal, summary counts, risky-first ordering) and adds the irreversible-cost context an agent needs before calling. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter paid batch tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 25-item cap, address formats, and duplicate/blank handling. The description's mention of the 25 limit and address formats is a restatement rather than added meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (screen), resource (blockchain addresses), and scope (up to 25 in a single call), then enumerates the exact return fields. The 'up to 25' batch framing implicitly separates it from the single-address sibling, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

'Cheaper per address than screening one at a time' gives a clear cost-based reason to prefer this tool over the one-at-a-time alternative, and the supported address formats (EVM 0x…, Tron T…) frame applicability. It never names the alternative tool explicitly nor states when NOT to batch, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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