verify_wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: a $0.11 cost, that agent reputation signals are descriptive and 'never scored', that advice is capped at 3 items, and that ERC-8004/agent reporting only applies on Base. It omits that results are time-sensitive (idempotentHint=false), which would be useful for a screening tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and result composition, then layered detail. Every sentence carries information (signal list, scoring caveat, price, address support), though the on-chain signal enumeration is dense.

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 must convey what is returned, and it does so thoroughly: the signal categories, the advice-item cap, the descriptive-only agent reputation, and chain coverage. The main omission is any note that results change over time, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% (chain_id documents CAIP-2 format and defaults, wallet_address is documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds only light context — 'Supports EVM and Solana addresses' and Base-specific behavior — without new syntax or format detail.

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 gives a specific verb (screen) and resource (wallet) and enumerates exactly which signals are produced (OFAC SDN match, on-chain signals, named risk rules, advice items), so the agent knows precisely what the tool yields. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the heavily overlapping siblings (sanctions_screen, wallet_sanctions_preview, check_agent_wallet), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several siblings that also screen wallets for sanctions/risk. The mention of EVM and Solana support and Base-specific behavior implies scope but does not route the agent between this tool and its near-duplicates.

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