wash_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by stating the function ('Check if an ENS sale is a wash trade'), the two analysis modes, and the return payload ('a wash confidence score (0-1), a label (clean/suspicious/likely_wash), detected signals, and a human-readable summary'). It doesn't mention potential side effects or safety implications, but the operation is inherently read-only/analytical, reducing the need for such disclaimers.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then immediately providing input-mode guidance and output details. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by clearly outlining the return values (score, label, signals, summary). It also explains the two input modes, making the tool usable. However, it could be more explicit about whether the live analysis parameters are all required together, and it doesn't mention what happens if both tx_hash and live parameters are provided. These are minor gaps but prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by grouping parameters into two usage modes and indicating mutual exclusivity: 'Provide either a tx_hash ... or provide label + buyer + seller + price_eth.' This clarifies how the otherwise optional parameters should be combined, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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: 'Check if an ENS sale is a wash trade.' It specifies the resource (ENS sale) and the specific analysis (wash trade detection), which is unique among sibling tools. The description also distinguishes two operational modes (pre-computed score lookup vs. live analysis), providing precise scope.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance by explaining two input modes: 'Provide either a tx_hash to look up a pre-computed score, or provide label + buyer + seller + price_eth for live on-demand analysis.' It clearly tells the user what inputs to supply for each scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, though the tool's specialized nature makes this less critical.

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