get_wallet_risk_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Price: $0.50', which hints at a paid service, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description lacks details on what 'risk analysis' entails or how the scoring works.

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 with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. The inclusion of 'Price: $0.50' is concise but could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values at a high level, but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values extensively, but more context on usage and limitations would help.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'wallet_address' as 'The wallet address to analyze (0x...)' and 'chain' as 'Primary chain for analysis. Options: ethereum, base, polygon', which clarifies the format and options beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail constraints like address validation or chain-specific behaviors.

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: 'Get risk analysis and security scoring for any wallet address.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet address'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_credit_risk_score' or 'get_risk_metrics', which might also involve risk assessment but for different domains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as 'detect_fraud' or 'run_compliance_check' for related security tasks. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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