Check Wallet Sanctions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: data comes from US Treasury, is cached for 24 hours, and the call degrades gracefully rather than raising when the list is unavailable. It does not specify what the degraded response contains, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 paragraphs, each front-loaded with its key fact (what it does, data freshness, failure behavior). No filler sentences; every line carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining essentials: data provenance, cache staleness, failure mode, and the downstream consequence of a hit. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the wallet address argument fully. The description adds no format detail beyond what the schema and the 'r...' hint provide, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Screen') plus precise resource ('an XRPL wallet address against the US OFAC SDN sanctions list'), with the data source named. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_wallet_kyc, which covers a different compliance regime.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it explains that sanctioned wallets cannot create or participate in AgentTrust escrows and score 0, which hints at pre-escrow screening. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus check_wallet_kyc or get_wallet_trust_score, nor does it state any ordering or prerequisite.

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