addressRisk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool flags (mixers, sanctions, high-risk counterparties) but doesn't describe how the risk score is calculated, what format the output takes, whether it's real-time or cached, rate limits, or error handling. For a risk assessment tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of risk assessment (involving scoring and flagging multiple risk types) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., score range, flag details), how to interpret results, or behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too much undefined.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify address validation rules or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Risk score', 'Flags') and resources ('Ethereum wallet address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on market data, history, or API info. It precisely communicates what the tool does: assess risk and identify specific risk categories.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for risk assessment of Ethereum addresses, it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like marketAnalyze or history tools that might offer different data. No explicit when/when-not instructions are present.

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