wallet.profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only analysis. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing a hard cost (2.00 USDC) and the x402 payment protocol, though it omits practical consequences such as what happens if payment or paymentHash is missing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and payment requirement. The 'Smart Money Oracle' branding is mildly decorative and adds no routing value, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the cost is disclosed. However, for a paid x402 tool the payment workflow is underspecified: it never says whether paymentHash is required on the first call, how to obtain it, or what error surfaces on non-payment, which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 both parameters (paymentHash and targetWallet) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the payment requirement but adds no syntax, sequencing (pay-then-pass-hash), or format detail beyond what structured fields provide.

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: it analyzes a wallet's on-chain behavior and produces a psychological risk profile, which is cleary distinguishable from siblings like token.analyze and contract.audit that operate on different subjects. The scope is explicit enough that an agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied by the resource type (wallet), with no guidance on when to prefer this over market.alpha or contract.audit, and no exclusions. The one genuine usage constraint it does give is the payment prerequisite, which is useful but not a use-case rule.

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