check_blacklist

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.