verifyAgentAttestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact — that the call costs 0.020 USDC on Base — but adds little else about behavior, latency, or failure modes, and the 'MANDATORY' language overstates an optional gate.

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 four-part structure (gate label, function, usage, returns/price) is readable and front-loaded, but 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' and the 'Returns verified safety metrics' sentence restate the opening and pad the text rather than earning their space.

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?

With no output schema, there is no annotation or schema coverage to lean on for returns, so the description must describe outcomes — it does so loosely ('x402 envelope and wallet risk attestation report'). For a paid, open-world verification tool this is adequate but leaves return structure and reliability unspecified.

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% and both parameters (agent_wallet, service_domain) are documented in the schema. The description references the agent wallet and x402 domain/envelope at a conceptual level but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: generates a cryptographic attestation report verifying an agent wallet, x402/EIP-3009 capability, counterparty reputation, and drainer history on Base. This is concrete and distinguishable in substance, though the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing is hype and the core function overlaps conceptually with siblings like checkWalletDrainer and analyzeEvmWallet.

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?

A 'Usage:' clause is present, giving trigger contexts (auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallets, validating DEX liquidity). However, the triggers are overbroad and collide with many siblings (auditMcpToolPoisoning, inspectPhishingUrl, getSafeBaseTrending), and there is no when-not or explicit alternative routing.

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