DYOE Wallet Screening ($0.05)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the price ($0.05 USDC on Base), the x402 payment mechanism, and the shape of the verdict output (safe/caution/avoid). No return format or latency/auth caveats beyond the payment note.

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 purpose, then the checks, then outputs, then input and price in distinct clauses. Dense but every element earns its place; no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only screening tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger context, the checks, the return fields (verdict, sanctioned flag, activity, red_flags), and the cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description is 100% covered and already documents the single 'address' parameter with an example. The description restates the input format ('?address=0x...') but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('crypto wallet address') and enumerates the exact checks performed (OFAC sanctions, on-chain footprint, human-vouch overlay). No sibling tool overlaps this screening role, so an agent can identify it cleanly.

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?

States the clear use context: 'Screen a crypto wallet address before an agent sends funds to it', giving the trigger condition. However, it does not name an alternative or state when-not to use this (e.g. versus a reputation or intel sibling), so no exclusions are provided.

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