manage_approvals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'risk assessment' in returns and a price, but doesn't disclose critical details like required permissions, rate limits, whether revoke_risky is destructive, or error handling. For a tool with potential write operations (revoke_risky), this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, and the price is efficiently noted. Every sentence earns its place, though the action options could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose, parameters, and returns, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety of revoke_risky) and detailed usage guidelines. The output schema reduces need to explain return values, but more context on tool behavior is warranted.

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 is 'to check', chain as 'Blockchain network', and action options ('list, revoke_risky'). However, it doesn't detail format requirements (e.g., wallet address validation), chain options beyond default, or what 'risky' means for revoke_risky. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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: 'Manage token approvals for a wallet' with specific actions (list, revoke_risky) and mentions risk assessment. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on token approvals rather than other wallet or blockchain operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_wallet_risk_score' which might overlap in risk assessment.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions actions but doesn't specify scenarios for choosing 'list' vs 'revoke_risky', prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_risk_score' or 'detect_fraud'. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not clearly articulated.

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