check_address_risk

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses real-time nature, cross-referencing with exploit feed, return fields (risk_score, risk_level, findings), and payment method (x402 USDC). Missing details on error handling or side effects, but overall strong behavioral context.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details. It is efficient but slightly verbose with payment info. Overall well-structured for an agent.

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, description adequately covers return types (risk_score, risk_level, findings) and payment context. Missing error behavior or address validation, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it specifies default chain ('eth') and lists supported chains. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers meaning.

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: performing a real-time risk check on an EVM address before acting. It specifies the resource (EVM wallet address) and context (cross-referencing approvals with exploit feed). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_pricing' which is unrelated.

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 indicates when to use ('BEFORE acting on it') and mentions payment model. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives to sibling tools. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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