Check Address AML Risk

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). Description adds value by noting the PRO nature and the API key requirement, which are important behavioral constraints not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, each essential. First states purpose and scope, second lists a key requirement. No redundant information. Front-loaded with most critical information.

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?

Given the tool has a simple interface (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context: what risks are checked, that it's a PRO feature, and API key needed. Could be improved by noting that results may include detailed flags or scores, but acceptable.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'address' with full description in schema (100% coverage). Description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks 'wallet/contract address' for specific risk categories: AML, exploits, phishing, sanctions. Verb 'check' and resource 'address' are precise. No sibling tool performs this function, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

Description mentions requirement for OPENPULSECHAIN_API_KEY, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other safety/risk tools), nor provides exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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