scan_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return types (risk_level, risk_flags, raw GoPlus data), supported chains, and pricing model. It does not mention destructive actions, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only scanning tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 a single paragraph of around 90 words, front-loading the main purpose and followed by details (output, chain support, pricing). It is concise with no fluff, though it could be slightly restructured for readability.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output fields (risk_level, risk_flags, raw data) and provides pricing and chain information. It is fairly complete, though it could mention any pagination or error handling.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context by confirming 'EVM wallet address' for address and 'default Ethereum mainnet, supports other chains via chain_id' for chain_id. This reinforces but does not significantly extend beyond the schema, meriting a baseline 3.

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 (check/scan) and resource (EVM wallet address) and specifies the output (risk_level, risk_flags, raw data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_breach, scan_file, etc., which target different entities (breaches, files, URLs).

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 explicit usage context: 'Use before sending funds to an unknown address or in DeFi due-diligence flows.' It also mentions pricing and chain support. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools among siblings, but the given guidance is clear and helpful.

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