cluster_wallet

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

The description mentions returns cluster size and related addresses, which adds behavioral context. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it does not disclose potential side effects, computational cost, or rate limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the information needed.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and output (cluster size and related addresses). Could optionally mention if depth is traversed forward/backward, but still complete enough.

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 parameters are already clear from schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 identifies related addresses through graph clustering, differentiating it from siblings like check_address_risk, batch_screening, or trace_transaction. The verb 'identify' and resource 'related addresses' are specific.

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 it is for exploring address connections, and context from sibling names (e.g., risk checks, coinjoin detection) helps distinguish use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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