Check address reputation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and needs no authentication, but does not mention rate limits, side effects, or the exact nature of the search (e.g., whether it checks a local database or an API). It adds some value but is not exhaustive.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the read-only and no-keys qualifier. Every word adds value with no waste.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple check but lacks details about the output format (e.g., boolean, risk level) since no output schema exists. It also does not clarify how it differs from check_token_safety. It is minimally complete but has 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 coverage is 50% (only address has a description). The tool description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema: it mentions 'chain' implicitly via supported chains in the enum but provides no explanation of its role. The description should compensate for the 50% coverage but does not.

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 clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'an address against known-malicious databases' with specific categories (phishing, sanctioned, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like check_token_safety by focusing on addresses in general.

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?

The description notes that it is read-only and requires no keys, implying safe usage without authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like check_token_safety or when not to use it.

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