screen_wallet

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return fields (sanctions match, OFAC programs, chain, risk verdict) and cost. No mention of rate limits or error handling, but key behaviors are covered.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, inputs, outputs, use cases, cost). No redundancy.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, outputs, use cases, and cost. Could elaborate on error cases or chain detection, but overall sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 parameter description. Description reinforces accepted address formats (EVM hex or Solana base58) and adds context about chain inference. Goes beyond schema by specifying output details.

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?

Description clearly states 'Sanctions + AML screening for any EVM or Solana wallet address', using specific verb (screening) and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like intel_wallet or decode_tx by focusing on sanctions compliance.

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: AML pre-flight checks, KYC onboarding, vendor diligence, etc. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and comprehensive.

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