wallet_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the score is 'based on multiple factors' but does not specify what those factors are, how the score is computed, what the output looks like, or any edge cases. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual 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 with no fluff or repetition. It immediately states the core purpose and is easy to scan. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It does not explain what a wallet score is, how to interpret the result, what range to expect, or any nuance like per-chain differences. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters already have basic descriptions ('Blockchain network', 'Wallet address to analyze') and a chain enum. The description adds no new parameter semantics, merely hinting at 'multiple factors' without linking them to the inputs. Baseline 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's action ('Calculate') and resource ('wallet score'), and the qualifier 'comprehensive...based on multiple factors' gives some scope. It is distinct from sibling wallet tools like wallet_profile or wallet_detect_whales, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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