check_token_approvals

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

Description details the process (scanning events, verifying current state), warns about old events possibly being outdated, and flags unlimited approvals as high-risk. It also clarifies read-only nature. No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Description is concise with no wasted words: a short intro, a paragraph on behavior, a note on read-only, and clear Args section. Front-loaded purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema needed due to its existence), description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and risk flags. No gaps identified.

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 0%, but description adds meaning for the only parameter: 'The 0x-prefixed wallet address to check.' This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 the tool checks a wallet's active ERC-20 and NFT token approvals on Base, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_rugpull_risk or get_wallet_balance.

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?

Description explains the tool scans historical events and verifies current state, and explicitly states it is read-only and cannot revoke. While it doesn't give explicit when-to-use vs. siblings, the context implies its specific use case.

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