List recently flagged high-risk addresses (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important behavior beyond that: the returned set is a 'representative sample' rather than an exhaustive list, includes source category and reason per address, takes no arguments, and is free with no API key. It does not mention rate limits or response size limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then use cases, then the no-argument/free constraint, so an agent can parse the key facts immediately.

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?

For a simple zero-argument list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the resource, the categories, the per-address return fields (source category and reason), and the sample/no-argument/free constraints. Pagination details are not relevant because it returns a representative sample rather than a paginated full list.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments', which is consistent with the empty schema but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a representative sample of addresses on OceanAlt's reviewed risk list', and breaks the list into concrete categories (OFAC-sanctioned, mixers, scam/phishing). This is clearly a read/list tool rather than a screening tool, but it never names a sibling like screen_address or batch_screen to make the distinction explicit.

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 clear usage contexts — grounding, showing what gets blocked and why, and a quick read on the threat surface — which tells an agent when this tool is a good fit. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name the screening alternatives for checking a specific address.

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