check_address_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'returns risk level, score (0-100), detections, and ML anomaly score', which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential traits like rate limits, data freshness, or reliance on external APIs, which would be important for an AML tool.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds information, with no wasted words. Could briefly mention that chain is auto-detected, but still efficient.

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 small number of parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, inputs, and output contents. Could add more behavioral context (e.g., data source) but overall adequate.

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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. It mentions 'Supports BTC, ETH, POL, AVAX, SOL' which matches the chain enum, and 'auto-detected if omitted' adds minor value. The description does not elaborate on the address format or language options beyond schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Get AML risk score for any blockchain address') and lists specific outputs (risk level, score, detections, ML anomaly score). It also names supported chains, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sanctions_check.

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 when to use this tool (for AML risk assessment), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The sibling tools (e.g., sanctions_check, batch_screening) could be compared, but no such advice is given.

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