Get Wallet Trust Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it lists the 12 constituent signals, explains score thresholds, mentions KYC-verified wallets can create escrows up to $10,000, and states it returns a full breakdown. This goes well beyond the annotations, giving the agent confidence about what the tool does and what to expect.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the signal list, usage guidance, thresholds, and return info. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified given the complexity. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description is comprehensive for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to expect. It covers the purpose, usage context, interpretation of results, and return format (full breakdown). Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return structure is acceptable. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter (wallet_address) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: obtaining a wallet trust score (0-100) for any XRPL wallet. It specifies the exact resource (wallet) and the operation (get score), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like check_wallet_sanctions and check_wallet_kyc by combining 12 signals into a comprehensive risk metric.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before accepting a job or creating an escrow to assess counterparty risk.' It also gives thresholds for interpreting scores, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool vs. more specific checks. Lacks an explicit exclusion clause, though the context is clear.

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