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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the return fields (match type, source, evidence) and the underlying data sources and coverage (9,000+ Tether freeze addresses, multi-chain OFAC on TRON). It omits cost/rate-limit and what a no-match response looks like, leaving a gap for a mutation-free lookup that agents may call in bulk.

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 English block is tight and front-loaded, with purpose first and usage second. However the full Chinese translation approximately doubles the token cost without adding new information, and the lead sentence buries the output contract behind the resource list.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating return fields and data sources. The remaining gap is that the schema marks zero required parameters and has no oneOf, yet the description never states that at least one of address or txhash must be supplied.

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 chain/address/txhash are already documented with enums and formats; baseline applies. The prose only restates that address or txhash is the input and adds nothing about the 'auto' chain detection behavior or what happens if both are supplied.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: it checks an address or txhash against named blacklist categories (Tether freezes, OFAC, phishing) and says what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling screen_address, which plausibly does something very similar — an agent must guess which to pick.

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?

"Use to judge whether funds are tainted or safe to receive" gives a decision context, which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite (e.g., need at least one of address/txhash), and no routing guidance versus screen_address or trace_funds.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload shape (score, level, verdict, matched flags) and accepted address formats, which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about rate limits, latency, permission requirements, or behavior on malformed/unsupported addresses, so important operational traits remain unknown.

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 English portion is front-loaded and efficient, leading with the action and the return values. But the entire description is then repeated verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length and token cost without adding information; a single bilingual sentence or a shorter note would have earned the same coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description adequately covers return values, supported chains, and address formats, so an agent knows what comes back. It is only slightly short on error handling and the distinction from sibling risk tools.

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 both the address format and the chain enum (auto/bsc/ethereum/base/arbitrum/tron) are already documented. The description only restates the accepted address prefixes, adding no extra semantics such as what 'auto' detection does when it fails or which chains are ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Screen a wallet address for on-chain risk') and enumerates concrete outputs (0-100 score, risk level, verdict, risk flags) plus supported networks. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings check_blacklist or trace_funds, though the broader scope is implied by the multi-flag output.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts — 'before receiving funds, interacting with a contract, or investing' — which tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when NOT to use it or why one would pick it over the overlapping sibling check_blacklist, leaving the boundary to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return categories, that a trace proceeds layer by layer, and that deep mode is slower but more complete (a latency/cost signal). It never explicitly says the operation is read-only or whether the target address is logged, and gives no sense of runtime limits.

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?

Purpose and outputs are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the deep-mode caveat comes before the usage examples, which is good ordering. The full Chinese mirror roughly doubles the length, which is defensible localization but not free — no sentence is otherwise wasted.

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 the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (exposure, hops, aggregation, laundering paths). All four parameters are documented in the schema, the mode tradeoff is stated, and the use cases are given — nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one piece of meaning beyond the schema — that deep mode trades speed for completeness — while the ambiguous target-vs-address duplication and the auto-detect chain default are left to the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("trace the flow of funds from an address or transaction, layer by layer") and enumerates what the trace yields (fund exposure, hop addresses, final aggregation, suspected laundering paths), which is far more concrete than the sibling names screen_address/check_blacklist. It stops short of naming how it differs from those siblings, even though the phrase "checking whether an incoming deposit passed through a mixer or sanctioned address" overlaps with what check_blacklist appears to do.

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?

Gives explicit use cases — "tracing stolen funds" and "checking whether an incoming deposit passed through a mixer or sanctioned address" — plus a mode tradeoff ("deep mode (slower but more complete)"). No when-not guidance or named alternative is offered, so the agent must infer that a pure blacklist lookup should go to check_blacklist instead.

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