goplus_address_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool 'checks' for malicious activity but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean, risk score), whether it is read-only, or any limitations (e.g., relies on known blacklists, does not guarantee safety). This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values and limitations, but it does not. It fails to mention what the response contains or any operational constraints (e.g., chain support), leaving the tool under-specified 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?

The schema already provides a clear parameter description ('Address to check for malicious activity') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as acceptable formats or supported chains, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an address') and clearly states the outcome: 'is associated with malicious activity (scams, phishing, hacks)'. This distinguishes it from sibling GoPlus tools like goplus_token_security (checks tokens) and goplus_dapp_security (checks dapps).

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 the tool is for checking addresses for malicious activity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention alternatives such as goplus_token_security or goplus_dapp_security. There is no guidance on context or exclusions.

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