check_crypto_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that no key is needed and that being listed is a strong fraud signal, but it does not go beyond the annotation context significantly.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph provides a clear trigger condition.

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 tool has an output schema (context signal) and is simple (one required parameter), the description covers the essential usage context and purpose. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is the lack of parameter detail, but the schema and context compensate.

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 0% per context signals, meaning the input schema has no descriptions beyond the JSON structure. The description mentions address type (BTC/EVM) but does not detail the response_format parameter or provide additional meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'crypto address' against scam databases. It specifies the type (BTC/EVM) and the action (checking against open databases), distinguishing it from sibling tools that check other entities.

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 explicitly says 'Use when: extract_entities found a crypto address in the message', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also warns that a request for crypto for a job is a red flag. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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