address_scan

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

While the description adds context about cost ($0.03 USDC) and the classification mechanism, it fails to disclose read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or output format. Without annotations, the description carries full burden but provides only partial behavioral 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, mechanism, and cost. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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?

Despite having clarity on purpose and cost, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., list of transactions with risk labels, summary score), error conditions, or behavior when inputs are invalid. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, but it adds useful context about cost and classification. Baseline 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 tool scans wallet addresses for anomalous transaction patterns by classifying transactions based on counterparties. It provides specific verb ('scan') and resource ('wallet address'), and the classification logic distinguishes it from generic scan tools like anomaly_scan.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as anomaly_scan or token_scan. The description is purely functional and does not indicate prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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