check_agent_wallet

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the $0.75 per-call cost and noting that open ERC-8004 feedback is returned but not scored. It does not say what happens when a wallet is unregistered or has no sanctions match, which would round this out.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and cost-conscious detail, with every clause mapping to an actual returned check. The long parenthetical nesting makes it slightly harder to scan, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating all four result components plus pricing. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/unregistered wallet, partial results), which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what agent_id actually unlocks (that agent's owner and payment wallet), which the schema does not state. The optional 'domain' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one small gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') plus the exact resource ('a counterparty agent's EVM wallet') and enumerates the four sub-checks performed, which is far more informative than a generic 'verify' tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like verify_wallet or sanctions_screen/wallet_sanctions_preview, so an agent must infer the composite nature of this 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?

The phrase 'counterparty agent's EVM wallet' implies the scenario (vetting an agent you may transact with), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many overlapping sibling tools. Usage must be inferred from the enumerated checks rather than stated.

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