assess_rwa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is unusually explicit: it discloses proxy-aware EIP-1967 resolution, behavioral transfer simulation, pause-state check, issuer OFAC screening, and intentionally omitted checks. It also discloses the $0.02 USDC cost and that it is not investment advice.

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 purpose, then mechanism, outputs, caveats, and cost in a logical order; every clause adds information. It is dense but not padded.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by listing key return values (risk_score 0-100, allow/review/block, is_permissioned_security), known blind spots, and the mandatory cost side-effect. It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect.

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 description adds useful semantics by indicating the target is a token contract and that proxy/EIP-1967 implementations are handled. However, it never names the target parameter, maps to payto_address, or explains network selection, and the context reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description does not fully carry the parameter-documentation burden.

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 action — score an RWA token before buying it — and clearly targets TOKENIZED ASSET, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assess_counterparty and compliance_check. The mention of tokenized treasuries/stocks/credits and permissioned securities leaves no ambiguity about the domain.

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 tells the agent when to invoke it: BEFORE buying an RWA token. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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