aml_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. Pricing is mentioned but that is a cost factor, not behavior. The description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise (one line) but includes non-functional information like pricing and an API URL. While it front-loads the purpose, the extra details could be distracting. It is adequately concise but not ideally structured.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., risk level, list of matches). It does not do this, leaving the agent unaware of the output format. The description is incomplete for a tool with a single parameter and no output schema.

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% coverage with a single parameter 'address' described as '钱包地址' (wallet address). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states 'AML反洗钱筛查', clearly indicating the tool screens a wallet address for anti-money laundering concerns. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'address_risk' or 'kyc_check'. However, the description does not elaborate on the type of screening or the result format, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred. The description lacks any usage context.

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