obol_wallet_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the $0.10 USDC cost, which is a useful behavioral trait, and the factors assessed. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects. For a risk assessment tool that likely only reads blockchain data, the safety profile is not disclosed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost. There is no wasted wording. It could arguably be structured with the cost in a separate sentence, but the current form is efficient and readable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and cost. However, it omits what the tool actually returns (e.g., a risk score, report, or label). An agent deciding whether to invoke this tool would benefit from knowing the output format, especially since cost is involved. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'address' as a Solana wallet address (100% coverage). The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 performs a 'multi-factor risk assessment' for a Solana wallet, enumerating the factors (age, diversification, activity patterns). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like obol_wallet_overview or obol_wallet_portfolio, which focus on different aspects.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other wallet tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, criteria for selection, or when it would be inappropriate. The only extra detail is the cost, which might influence usage but doesn't help an agent decide if risk assessment is the right tool for the task.

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