check_approval_risks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool identifies risky unlimited approvals, which is a behavioral outcome, but does not explain how risk is determined, whether the operation is read-only, or what data sources are used. Basic context is present, but depth is lacking.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core function but does not describe the return format, criteria for 'risky' that would help set expectations, or any additional context like network behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for a decision-support 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter text in the schema (network, walletAddress, tokenAddresses). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Check token approvals') and a specific resource ('for a wallet'), and further differentiates from sibling tools by adding the risk-assessment goal ('identify risky unlimited approvals'). This distinguishes it from tools like get_token_approvals which likely just list approvals.

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 implies usage when one needs to check approvals and assess risk, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like check_token_allowance, batch_check_allowances, or goplus_approval_security. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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