wallet_check

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses x402 pricing (USDC on Base), the free path via WICKEDAPI_API_KEY, and pre-empts the most common misread by explaining that an HTTP 402 with a decoded price in payment_required is a quote, not a failure. It also names the returned decision fields (risk_level, do_not_transact/review_before_transacting/no_red_flags_found) and that unavailable sources are reported.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and what is screened, followed by returns, example, usage, and behavior blocks in a predictable order. There is minor redundancy between the opening scope sentence and the 'Use when...' sentence repeating the same OFAC/malicious/on-chain list, and the bracketed '[Wallet Oracle]' tag is low-value.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (risk_level, a plain recommendation, every reason with its source, unavailable sources) and covers payment gating, which is the main failure mode for this tool. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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% and the chain enum (ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon) plus the base default are already documented in the schema. The example query string illustrates address/chain usage but adds no semantics the schema does not already carry, 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 and resource ('pre-transaction counterparty check for an EVM wallet or contract') and enumerates what it aggregates: OFAC SDN screening, GoPlus malicious-address flags, and a live on-chain profile (EOA/contract/EIP-7702, nonce, balance, ENS, first tx, verification). It also explicitly carves itself off from the sibling token_risk, so an agent can distinguish 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?

'Use when you are about to transact and want a pre-transaction check of a wallet or contract' gives a concrete trigger condition, and 'Not for token contract safety (use token_risk)' supplies both an exclusion and the named alternative. Nothing about choosing this tool is left to inference.

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