spraay_classify_address

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

The description claims the tool 'analyzes' on-chain activity (implying read-only), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, indicating it is not read-only. This contradiction undermines transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose, and includes key details like cost and output types. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description covers return value types and cost. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., address must be on-chain), but overall sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single parameter. 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 function: AI-powered wallet classification with risk scoring, listing specific classification types and outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spraay_classify_tx (transaction classification) and other wallet-related tools.

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?

The description provides context (cost of $0.008 USDC) and what the tool does, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. This leaves room for improvement in guiding agent selection.

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