Wallet risk profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns activity, exposure, and flags, and notes the paid cost. However, it does not describe the output format, data sources, or whether it is a real-time check, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 description is two sentences: the first conveys the core purpose and components, the second gives the usage context, followed by a separate line for pricing. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key contextual elements: purpose, usage timing, cost, and parameter hints. It could be more complete by elaborating on what the flags represent or providing an example risk profile, but it is adequate for a simple risk-check tool.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely (wallet address and supported chains), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides a risk profile for a wallet, listing specific components (activity, exposure, flags) and an explicit use case ('Use before trusting or sending funds to an address'). This distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_sanctions and rhchain_wallet_score.

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 description gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use before trusting or sending funds to an address.' This is clear and actionable. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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