checkWalletSanctions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the specific data sources queried and, importantly, a cost of 0.010 USDC on Base, which an agent must know before calling. It does not describe the return structure ("verified safety metrics" is vague) or behavior for unmatched addresses.

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 and reasonably sized, but the third sentence re-states "OFAC/SDN" and "EVM/Solana" verbatim from the first sentence and adds little beyond "compliance screening" already implied. "MANDATORY SECURITY GATE" is promotional framing that consumes space without adding invocation-relevant information.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only screening tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sources, triggering contexts, and cost adequately. The only notable gap is the shape of the returned safety verdict, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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% with a single required "address" parameter already documented as an EVM or Solana address. The description repeats the EVM/Solana duality but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 ("Screens"), resource ("EVM and Solana wallet addresses"), and scope (OFAC SDN, Lazarus Group, exploit/drainer blacklists). The screening scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like checkWalletDrainer and analyzeEvmWallet 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?

Explicitly names triggering contexts: "auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity on Base or Solana." However, it gives no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent cannot tell from the text why it should prefer this over the overlapping checkWalletDrainer sibling.

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