chainpeek: check a wallet for a drain: tokens pulled out in transactions it did not send

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: verdict semantics (drained/review/clean) with the exact rules that trigger each, the 2,000-block scope, the four transfer classifications, error behaviour (422 bad input, 502 failed read, neither charged), latency (2-10 s), pricing and a free daily quota. This is unusually rich behavioural disclosure for a read-only tool.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a dense multi-clause run-on that packs verdict rules, classifications, pricing, error codes and quotas into a single paragraph. Much of it earns its place, yet the wall-of-text format makes it harder to scan than a structured list would be.

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 paid, rate-limited security read, the description covers scope, verdict logic, edge cases (gasless orders look like pulls, smart-account/EIP-7702 wallets), failure modes, timing, cost and docs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and nothing an agent needs to call this 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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (default 2,000 blocks, USDC/USDT or up to 5 tokens). It adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a wallet for a drain: find tokens pulled out without its signature') and explicitly routes the related case to a named sibling (audit_token_approvals). An agent can distinguish this from the other wallet/contract checkers 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('For live approvals with revoke transactions use audit_token_approvals'), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It does not cover other near-neighbours (get_wallet_counterparties, check_address_poisoning) or state when a drain check is unnecessary, so it stops short of the full when/when-not pattern.

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