Screen a crypto address for AML risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that `sanctioned: true` is blocking independently of score, that the score is a 0–100 risk reading rather than a share of funds, that absent addresses are reported as NOT FOUND and must not be treated as clean, and that chain is identity rather than a hint. These are meaningful operational and interpretive traits beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 front-loaded with purpose then structured interpretation notes ('Read the answer this way') and chain semantics, with no filler sentences. There is mild redundancy with the schema's own chain description, which slightly limits conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does substantial work explaining return semantics, edge cases, and the meaning of chain omission. It remains incomplete only in tool-selection guidance against siblings and in any auth or rate-limit notes, which are not addressed.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it stresses that chain is part of the address's identity, that the same 0x address is a different wallet on ethereum, bsc, and tron, and that omitting chain screens every allowed format with each result labelled. The schema already mentions omitting chain when unknown, so this is reinforcing and extending rather than wholly new.

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 ('screen') and resource ('one blockchain address'), and enumerates what it reports: risk level/score, sanctions, issuer freezes, address type, risk provenance, and supported chains. Clear purpose, but it does not differentiate from siblings trace_funds and list_counterparties, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why to pick this over those.

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?

Usage is implied by 'AML screening for one blockchain address' and the chain parameter guidance ('Pass chain when you know it; if you omit it...'), which helps a caller use it correctly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative sibling tools, so selection against trace_funds or list_counterparties is left to inference.

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