Wallet privacy check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the categories of 'leaks' surfaced (funder, linked wallets, holdings, active hours, launches, trading record, linked accounts) and an important interpretive caveat that the grade measures visibility rather than wallet quality, which prevents misuse of the result.

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 the returned artifacts and followed by the interpretive caveat and scope. The chain scope is stated twice ('from Robinhood Chain alone' and 'Robinhood Chain only'), a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so by naming each output component. Missing only finer details such as grade thresholds or the shape of the 'tips' payload, which are secondary for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 0x + 40 hex address format. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 states a specific verb (analyze what anyone can learn) and resource (a wallet on Robinhood Chain), and enumerates the exact artifacts returned: a letter grade, a 0-100 score, individual leaks, and tips. It also scopes the analysis to Robinhood Chain data only, which separates it from the launch/coin-oriented siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource being a wallet and the phrase 'Robinhood Chain only', which tells the agent not to expect cross-chain coverage. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion language, and no routing to or from siblings such as dev_record or check_coin.

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