intel_wallet

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses cost ($0.005 USDC) and the data sources (8-10 parallel free public sources) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core value proposition: 'Unified wallet intelligence bundle. ONE call returns...' Highly efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-chain, multiple data points), the description covers the major return elements. Missing details like error cases or data update frequency, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand what it does.

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?

Only one parameter 'wallet' with schema description 'EVM 0x… address (40 hex) or Solana base58 pubkey.' Schema coverage is 100%, making the description sufficient. No additional insight beyond the schema is provided.

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 it is a 'Unified wallet intelligence bundle' returning balances on Base, Ethereum, Solana, USDC across chains, transaction count, ENS/SNS reverse lookup, and sanctions verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tools like screen_wallet by advertising aggregated data from 8–10 sources in one call.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'KYB pre-flight, counterparty research, fraud detection'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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