evaluate_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output format (decision, risk score, explanation) and the meaning of BLOCK and WARN. It also notes the role of agent_id in reputation history. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not execute the action itself, though 'before executing' implies this.

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 well-structured: a concise opening statement, clear usage guidance, and a neatly formatted Args list. Each sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.

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 8 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It explains the decision categories and how to act on them, which complements the output schema. No critical context is missing, such as the meaning of return values or parameter constraints.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter in the Args section. It provides allowed values for action_type, examples for chain, and clarifies the purpose of agent_id, wallet, target, tokens, and amount. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate a proposed blockchain action before executing it.' It uses a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('proposed blockchain action'), and the return type (ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK) further clarifies its function. This distinguishes it from sibling tool get_agent_history, which is about history retrieval.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE submitting any transaction on behalf of a user or agent.' It also explains how to interpret WARN and BLOCK results, which informs decision-making. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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