Check an address before sending it funds (quick tier, $0.02)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the call is paid ($0.02 USDC via x402 from VERDIX_PRIVATE_KEY), that it is refused up front if above VERDIX_MAX_PRICE_USD, that a 503 is not charged, which checks every tier runs vs. the extra address-age read this tier adds, and the exact meaning of each verdict value. This is unusually rich disclosure for a paid, open-world call.

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?

Front-loads purpose, tier and price, then verdict semantics, then payment mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical about check_address_risk tier="quick" and the payment paragraph overlap slightly in topic, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (verdict, risk_score, reasons, checked, tier, price_usd, as_of) and the failure/pricing edge cases, so an agent knows both what it gets back and what it costs before invoking.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required param whose pattern and meaning are already documented in the schema ('the recipient, contract or counterparty'). The description adds only contextual framing (sending money / interacting) rather than new syntax or semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (EVM address on Base) plus the exact tier and price, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_address_risk with tier="quick". An agent can tell instantly what this does and how it differs from the other three risk tiers.

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?

Gives an explicit use case (before sending funds or interacting), an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it (check_address_risk with tier="quick" for the same price without a dedicated tool), and decision rules for the two non-safe verdicts ('do not send funds' for danger, 'confirm with the user first' for caution).

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