chainpeek: list a wallet's live token approvals (ERC-20 and Permit2) with revoke transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further with material context: 'Nothing is signed or sent,' error semantics (422 for bad input, 502 for failed read, neither charged), runtime (3-15 s), price (USD 0.005), a free tier (10 chain reads per IP per UTC day), and a docs link. This is rich disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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-loads the verb and the sibling routing, then layers return fields, risk tiers, errors, timing, and pricing. Dense but mostly load-bearing per sentence. It loses a point for enumerating return fields ('amount, `unlimited`, spender code... `revoke`') that the output schema already supplies.

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 6-parameter, Permit2-aware audit tool the description covers scope, candidate sources, risk semantics, staleness, errors, latency, cost, and safety. With an output schema present, the return values needn't be re-explained, and nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds behavior beyond the schema by explaining that the 6,000-block scan only surfaces recent candidates and that older approvals require `spenders` or Permit2, plus how risk tiers (High/Medium/Low) are assigned from unlimited/key-controlled vs contract-with-no-code distinctions.

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+resource+scope: 'List a wallet's live token approvals and get revoke transactions,' naming ERC-20 and Permit2 coverage in the title. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, check_wallet_drain (already-drained tokens) and get_allowance (single allowance), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('For tokens already pulled out use check_wallet_drain; for one allowance use get_allowance') and an edge-case condition ('Older approvals are found only via `spenders` or Permit2'). It also explains when the spenders/lookback_blocks path is the necessary choice.

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