Check Wallet AML

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

The description discloses mock mode behavior and data source (BitOK/Satoshkin), which is good. However, it contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=false by stating 'Check' (implying read-only), creating inconsistency. The contradiction lowers trust in behavioral clarity.

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 efficient sentences: first sentence states the core function and outputs, second sentence adds critical mock mode note. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the main purpose and mock mode, but lacks detail on output structure and risk interpretation. The annotation contradiction also weakens completeness.

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?

The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema already has 50% coverage (chain described, address only minLength), and the description provides no further explanation of how to use the parameters or their constraints. Low schema coverage demands compensation, which is missing.

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: 'Check a crypto wallet address for AML/KYT risk.' It specifies the outputs (risk score, risk level, tags, activity data) and data source, making the purpose unambiguous. No siblings exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 usage when an AML check on a wallet is needed and mentions the mock mode condition without SATOSHKIN_API_KEY. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tools.

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