IP Fraud & Proxy Detection

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context by specifying the fraud score range (0-100) and listing returned data types (geolocation, abuse velocity, connection type, 9+ risk indicators), going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first describes the action and main outputs concisely, second provides a usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: core purpose, fraud score range, types of indicators, and practical use case. It comprehensively sets agent expectations without needing more detail.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It focuses on outputs rather than parameter usage guidance.

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 checks an IP address for fraud signals, listing specific detections (proxy, VPN, Tor, bot, crawler) and outputs (fraud score, geolocation, abuse velocity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geo.ip.geolocation and other security.ipqs tools by focusing on fraud detection.

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 implies use for e-commerce fraud prevention and general IP risk assessment, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No direct comparison to sibling tools provided.

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