screen_address

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.