netintel_wallet_intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (a single scored report with risk flags), but omits whether the call is read-only, any rate/credit limits, chain defaulting behavior, and what happens for invalid or unindexed addresses.

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?

The second sentence ("The domain-report of wallets: wallet age, first funder, in/out totals…") largely restates the first, adding redundancy rather than new information. The text is also truncated mid-sentence with an ellipsis, leaving it structurally open-ended.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of structured meaning — and it is cut off mid-enumeration. It never finishes describing the report fields and provides nothing on address format, chain selection, or error behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the accepted `chain` domain ("Base or Ethereum") and the wallet subject, but never names the parameters, states that `address` is required, specifies expected 0x address format, or clarifies whether chain defaults when omitted.

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 and resource — counterparty due-diligence producing a scored report for Base/Ethereum wallets — and enumerates the report's contents (age, funding origin, USDC flow, activity pattern, risk flags). It is distinguishable in kind from siblings like netintel_wallet_balance and netintel_wallet_status, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Counterparty due-diligence" implies the use case (vetting a wallet before transacting), which gives implied context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no routing to the obvious siblings wallet_balance (point-in-time holdings) or wallet_status (liveness), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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