Get Wallet Trust Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context they cannot carry: rate limits, cost model, the meaning of score bands (below 30 / 30–60 / 60+), and a downstream consequence (KYC-verified wallets can create escrows up to $10,000). This is behavior an agent needs to reason about the result.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, then signals, then cost/limits, then score interpretation — a logical order with no wasted sentences. The opening 'Open reputation layer for XRPL agents' is slight positioning flavor rather than operational content, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still notes that it returns a per-signal breakdown. Combined with cost, rate limits, score bands, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents wallet_address fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns a 0–100 trust score for any wallet') and enumerates the 11 signals it aggregates, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from narrow siblings like check_wallet_kyc and check_wallet_sanctions, which cover only individual signals.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'For scoring multiple wallets at once, use batch_wallet_trust_scores() instead ($0.10 per batch of up to 50).' It also discloses cost ('Free to query') and a rate limit (20 calls/hour/IP), which is the practical condition that would push an agent toward the batch sibling.

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