checkWalletDrainer

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description need not restate safety. It does add genuinely useful context the annotations lack: this is a paid call costing 0.02 USDC on Base. The 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing is promotional over-claiming for what is an optional read-only audit, which slightly undermines trust.

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 key framing, but the content is redundant: 'Audits EVM wallet and counterparty addresses' and the Permit2/OFAC enumeration appear twice within four sentences, and 'Returns verified safety metrics:' is a hollow lead-in to a repeat of the purpose sentence.

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?

A read-only tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the audit returns. It only offers 'verified safety metrics' with no shape or format, and does not reconcile the Base/Solana scope or the numeric chain_id, leaving some agent-facing gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description implies chain scoping ('Base or Solana') but adds no format detail, and its string-style naming of chains contradicts the schema's numeric chain_id type, leaving ambiguity unresolved.

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 (audits) and resource (EVM wallet and counterparty addresses) and enumerates the exact checks: Permit2 drainer exposure, approval phishing history, OFAC sanctions flags. It overlaps noticeably with siblings checkWalletSanctions and analyzeEvmWallet but never distinguishes itself from them, and the Base-vs-Solana scope is internally inconsistent (purpose says 'on Base', usage says 'Base or Solana').

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?

Provides a when-to-use trigger ('when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity') which is more than most tools offer. However there are no exclusions or alternatives named, despite three near-neighbor siblings (checkWalletSanctions, analyzeEvmWallet, inspectContractInfo) that an agent could confuse it with.

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