Check Wallet KYC Status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the consequence of the result ($10,000 escrow cap when verified vs. the default $3,000), the cost of the downstream KYC flow, and the returned fields. One tension is left unexplained: the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, while the text reads like a pure status read, and the description never clarifies whether the check itself writes or caches anything.

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, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler: purpose first, then the consequence, then the fallback action. The final 'Returns:' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and harmless.

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 one-parameter read-style tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, outcome thresholds, and next steps, so an agent can call it correctly. It leaves the readOnlyHint=false annotation unexplained and does not position itself against the other wallet-status checks, which are the only real 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wallet_address fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema (the 'r...' address convention lives in the schema), so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check identity verification status for a wallet operator.' It is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent wallet-checking siblings (check_wallet_sanctions, get_wallet_trust_score) because it names KYC/Didit identity verification explicitly and defines the resulting state (kyc_verified).

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?

It gives a concrete usage branch: if kyc_verified is false, route the operator to start_wallet_kyc() for the $0.50 verification flow. That is actionable routing, though it does not say when NOT to use this tool versus the other wallet-status siblings (sanctions, trust score), so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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