agent-kya-score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly describes output components (score, tier, sanctions, breakdown, attestations, stats, limits) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. No side effects are mentioned, but the level of detail compensates.

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 somewhat long but each sentence provides useful information. It is front-loaded with the main output and purpose. Could be slightly trimmed, but overall efficient given the complexity of outputs.

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 comprehensively covers the return values despite no output schema. It lists all major components (score, tier, sanctions, breakdown, attestations, stats, limits) and provides use cases. Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete and sufficient.

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 only parameter 'address' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context: 'EVM wallet address to score (0x-prefixed, 42 chars). Works on any EVM chain — score is chain-agnostic.' This clarifies format and scope beyond the schema.

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 returns a KYA trust score for any EVM wallet, with a detailed list of outputs including score, tier, sanctions, breakdowns, attestations, and limits. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wallet-balance and wallet-screener by focusing on trust 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?

The description recommends use 'before accepting payment from an agent or before dispatching a sub-agent with funds' and answers specific questions. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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