multichain_wallet_aml_risk_screener

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't: it implies a read-only lookup but never states permissions, API key or subscription requirements, rate limits, latency for multi-address batches, or cost per address. Nothing is said about what happens with an unsupported chain in the chains array or how many addresses can be screened in one call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the screening dimensions are packed into one readable clause list. Slightly dense but nothing needs removing.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the shape of the result — how risk scores are expressed, whether flags are per-chain or per-address, how balances/velocity are returned — and it does none of that. For a multi-chain scoring tool with three parameters and no structured return definition, this leaves the agent guessing about what it will receive.

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 coverage is 100% (addresses, chains with enumerated values and default, maxTransactions with default), so the schema does the parameter work. The description only gestures at chain scope via "EVM and Solana" and adds no format guidance (address normalization, checksum, mixed-chain arrays), which is the baseline-3 expectation.

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?

"Screen EVM and Solana wallet addresses" is a specific verb plus resource, and the follow-on list (native balances, transaction velocity, mixer exposure, sanctions flags, AML risk scores) tells the agent exactly what signals come back. It does not name or differentiate itself against siblings such as global_sanctions_pep_gleif_kyb_screener or dex_token_scanner_security_auditor, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus the sanctions/PEP screener sibling or the token security auditor, and no exclusions (e.g., non-EVM chains, contract addresses vs EOAs). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and the field list.

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