address-security

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data sources (GoPlus Labs, SlowMist, BlockSec) and return values (risk score 0-100, per-flag breakdown) but omits potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness details.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose then adding detection details, data sources, return values, and supported chains. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and returns (risk score and per-flag breakdown) but lacks examples or details about the response structure. Since no output schema exists, slightly more detail would improve completeness, but it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by expanding on the 'chain' parameter with a specific list of supported chains and implying extensibility ('and more'), and by contextualizing the 'address' parameter within the tool's purpose.

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 performs wallet/address security and reputation checks, listing specific detection categories (phishing, sanctions, cybercrime, etc.) and data sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sanctions-screening' or 'solana-token-risk' by mentioning multi-chain support and comprehensive risk detection.

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 needing to check an address's security but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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