Check Wallet Sanctions

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: data is cached for 24 hours, the tool never raises on list unavailability and degrades gracefully, and it always returns a result with a defined structure. This is strong added transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then adds relevant sourcing/caching context, business impact, graceful degradation behavior, and a clear return fields list. Every sentence contributes value without 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 tool with a defined return structure, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool does, how data is sourced, what happens for sanctioned wallets, how failures are handled, and what the response contains. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already clearly documents `wallet_address` as an XRPL wallet address (r...). The description does not add significant new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('an XRPL wallet address against the US OFAC SDN sanctions list'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates this from sibling tools like check_wallet_kyc by focusing on sanctions screening.

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 usage context is implied through the purpose and the consequence statement ('Sanctioned wallets cannot create or participate in AgentTrust escrows'), but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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