check_wallet_safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions using an external API but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or failure modes. For a security screening tool, more behavioral context (e.g., whether it triggers alerts or is query-only) is needed.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with action and purpose. It is concise, but could be slightly more structured with separate lines for key details. However, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., risk factors, blacklist status) or that it uses an external API. A complete description for a tool with 3 parameters should provide more context on behavior and output.

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%, so parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., it does not explain default behavior for network or chain_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool screens wallet addresses for malicious activity, blacklists, and sanctions using GoPlus Security API. It uses specific verb 'Screen' and resource 'wallet address', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_token_safety or check_contract_safety.

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 use for wallet security checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like check_token_safety or check_contract_safety. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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