multichain_wallet_aml_risk_screener

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 and largely fails it. 'Real-time' hints at freshness and 'structured data extraction feed' hints at read-only retrieval, but nothing is said about what is returned, whether results are scored/ranked, rate limits, authentication, or data provenance — all material for an AML screening 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?

It is short, but not efficient: the tool name appears twice within one sentence, and the 'Real-time structured data extraction feed for...' wrapper is filler that conveys no actionable information. Nothing is front-loaded about capability or scope.

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?

For a domain as consequential as AML risk screening, with no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented-by-description parameter, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a call returns or how to interpret results, which is the critical missing context for this tool.

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% for the single 'maxResults' parameter, and the schema itself carries the meaning ('Maximum number of structured items to extract'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics about result limits or default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 phrase 'Multi-Chain Wallet Portfolio & AML Risk Screener' does name a resource, but the sentence is pure tautology: 'Real-time structured data extraction feed for <tool name>' restates the title rather than describing what the tool actually does. It never says whether it returns risk scores, wallet holdings, sanctions matches, or chain coverage, so an agent cannot distinguish its behavior from the sibling 'global_sanctions_pep_gleif_kyb_screener' on the basis of the description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The description does not state prerequisites, which sibling to prefer, or what inputs trigger a meaningful result, leaving the agent to guess from the tool name alone.

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