Check address risk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact return semantics (risk score 0-100, bands, categories), conditional verbosity with an API key, and the resource cost ('Each call consumes one check'). It doesn't contradict annotations, and the additional consumption caveat is valuable.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and returns, then use cases, then chains and consumption. It is concise at four sentences, with no fluff. It could be slightly tighter (the chain list is redundant with the schema enum), but it remains efficiently structured and readable.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return types, but it still explains the risk score range, band concept, and categories. It also covers supported chains, use cases, and the API-key enhancement. Everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result is present, so it is fully complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain enum and address format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics—it only references the chain coverage implicitly, which the schema already communicates. No additional meaning is introduced 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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair ('Score a single crypto address for AML and compliance risk') that precisely states the tool's function. It also differentiates from the sibling tool screen_transaction by focusing on address-level vetting rather than transaction screening.

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 lists concrete use cases ('before sending funds', 'triage a pasted address', 'vet a deposit address'), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude transaction screening, but the single sibling tool makes the distinction evident; mentioning that tool as an alternative would make this a perfect 5.

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