wallet-credit-score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes aggregated components and tier labels but lacks details on data freshness, authorization, or rate limits. Adequate but could improve.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core definition and use cases. The pricing footnote is tangential but not excessive. Very concise.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the score range, tier labels, and use cases. No missing information for agent selection.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the address format. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it computes a composite credit score (0–100) for any EVM wallet, aggregating multiple metrics. It distinguishes from siblings like wallet-balance and wallet-screener by focusing on trustworthiness scoring.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: before sending payments, routing agent transactions, or assessing counterparty risk. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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