concentration-risk-score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes what the tool returns but fails to state whether it is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe agentic decision-making.

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 two sentences, front-loading the return values and usage context. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple scoring tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key return metrics. However, it lacks details on error conditions, data freshness, or output format, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds the context 'x402' and 'pay_to wallet' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concentration-risk score for an x402 pay_to wallet, listing specific metrics (HHI, unique payer count, etc.). It names the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'address-security' or 'agent-access-check' that may also assess risk.

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 a specific use case: assessing whether an endpoint is a single-agent dependency before building a workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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