wallet_sanctions_check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it is free, requires no key or payment, performs exact matching, is chain-agnostic, and returns sanctioned entity, program, and publish date.

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 key purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, but the description contains a near-verbatim duplicate of the main sanctions-check sentence, which adds length without new information. The duplication noticeably weakens conciseness despite otherwise efficient phrasing.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies what is still useful: usage guidance, alternative tool, cost/auth behavior, exact-match semantics, chain support, and what the response contains. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently explains return details.

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 the single address parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that matching is exact, that it applies to digital-currency addresses across EVM, Tron, Bitcoin and others, and by including an example address.

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 question the tool answers: whether an address is on the US Treasury OFAC SDN sanctions list, using exact matching across multiple chains. It clearly distinguishes the tool from broader wallet risk checks by naming wallet_check as the alternative for counterparty risk.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for a free yes/no on whether an address is on the OFAC SDN list. It also gives an exclusion and alternative: not for broader counterparty risk, use wallet_check instead.

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