Wallet safety composite signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is paid (up to $0.02 per call via x402 on Base) and paid automatically, which adds cost transparency. However, it omits other behaviors such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens for invalid addresses/chains.

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 extremely concise with two brief sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds critical cost information. No wasted words.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools (e.g., contract_safety, wallet_risk, wallet_sanctions). It also does not describe the return format beyond the verdict categories, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the purpose. No additional formatting, constraints, or examples are provided, so the schema carries the full 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?

Description clearly states tool produces a composite SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER verdict for an address by combining reputation, contract checks, and sanctions. It identifies the specific resource (address) and the action (verdict). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like contract_safety or wallet_risk, which may have overlapping functions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or mention sibling tools. The pricing note is informative but does not help with selection context.

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