screen_solana_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is live/network-bound, automatically negotiates and settles an x402 micro-payment (a side effect), returns a specific JSON structure, and handles failures by returning isError. This is comprehensive and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then return format, then error handling. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition. It's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object with exact fields and possible values, and explains failure behavior. It also clarifies the tool's place among siblings, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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% and the schema already describes the address parameter with format, length, and example. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('screen') with a clear resource ('Solana wallet address') and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the offline alternative (generate_compliance_report) and payment validation (verify_x402_payment). The agent can immediately know what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you need an authoritative, up-to-date screening decision...' and provides alternatives with conditions ('For a deterministic, offline audit record instead, use generate_compliance_report; to validate a payment itself, use verify_x402_payment'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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