insumer_wallet_trust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'per-dimension pass/fail counts and overall summary,' emphasizes 'No score, no opinion — just cryptographically verifiable evidence,' and mentions cost (3 or 6 credits). It does not explicitly state it is read-only but implies it via 'no opinion' and the nature of trust profiles. The absence of destructive hint is not misleading. Overall, it provides strong behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, well-organized paragraph. The first sentence states the main function. Subsequent sentences systematically enumerate checks, return values, and cost. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has moderate complexity (5 parameters, optional multi-chain wallets). The description covers the overall process, supported assets, and return summary. Without an output schema, it provides a high-level description of what is returned ('per-dimension pass/fail counts and overall summary'). However, it lacks exact output format details (e.g., JSON structure, field names). Given the absence of output schema, the description is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that optional wallet parameters add specific checks (e.g., Solana adds USDC on Solana). It also clarifies the 'proof' parameter's effect (merkle proof costs 6 credits). This semantic enrichment justifies a score above baseline.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Generate') and specific resource ('wallet trust fact profile'). It enumerates the exact checks (36 base checks across stablecoins, governance, NFTs, staking) and distinguishes itself from siblings like insumer_batch_wallet_trust by implying a single-wallet operation. The purpose is highly specific and differentiated.

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 states it is 'Designed for AI agent-to-agent trust decisions,' providing context for use. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like insumer_batch_wallet_trust, nor does it specify when not to use it or list alternatives. The usage is implied but lacks exclusion guidance.

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