spraay_summarize

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the cost ($0.008 USDC) and specifies return types (structured risk assessment, etc.). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (aligning with the cost/not purely read) and openWorldHint=true (possible external side effects). The description does not contradict annotations and provides useful additional 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 two sentences: first clearly states the tool's purpose and outputs, second mentions cost. It is front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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's complexity (2 params, 1 required, has output schema), the description adequately covers input types and return categories. It mentions cost, which is critical for agent decision-making. However, it could optionally note that the tool works for both addresses and transactions, which it does, but that is covered. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates input types but does not elaborate on syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides. The optional 'context' parameter is well-described in the schema, and the description adds no further clarification.

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 verb ('summarize') and the resource ('wallet address or transaction hash'), and specifies the output ('structured risk assessment, entity classification, activity summary, actionable insights'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a broad intelligence briefing, while siblings like classify_address or classify_tx are more narrow.

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 implies usage for gaining intelligence on addresses/txs and mentions the cost, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling tools that may overlap (e.g., spraay_classify_address, spraay_analytics_wallet), the agent would benefit from alternatives or exclusion criteria, which are absent.

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