wallet-screener

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavioral aspects: data source (GoPlusLabs), freeness, no key required, optional chain_id behavior, and output type. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only screening tool, this is adequate.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (risk score and flags) and covers the main input parameters and usage context. It could mention the exact output format, but the list of categories compensates.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default cross-chain behavior when chain_id is omitted and listing the categories of flags returned, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 performs risk screening for EVM wallet addresses, returns a quantifiable risk score and specific flags, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool evm-token-security which screens token contracts.

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 concrete use cases (before sending funds to unknown address, accepting payment, validating counterparty wallet) and distinguishes from a key sibling tool. However, it does not mention other possible alternatives or exclusions beyond evm-token-security.

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