Wallet approval-risk scan + revoke calldata (paid $0.01)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses payment requirements (x402, USDC on Base), the 402 challenge response when unpaid, the fact that it never broadcasts calldata, and security caveats like 'fake-approval revoke bait'. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense yet compact—three sentences covering payment, functionality, flags, return value, and security. Each sentence adds distinct value, front-loaded with the paid cost and x402 context. No wasted words.

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 and no annotations, the description is thorough: it covers what the tool scans, what it flags, what it returns (revoke calldata), execution responsibility, payment flow, and free alternative. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new parameter semantics beyond the schema—'pass x_payment' restates what the schema already explains. No additional insight on address/chain formats is provided.

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 scans wallet ERC-20/721 approvals, ranks them by exposure, flags risky spenders, and returns revoke calldata. It explicitly names the free sibling 'approvals_free' for comparison, distinguishing the paid version.

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?

It provides clear payment context ('PAID $0.01', x402 mechanics) and points to 'approvals_free' as an alternative. It doesn't explicitly exclude other sibling tools like token_safety/simulate, but the paid/free distinction and execution guidance ('execute YOURSELF') give solid contextual usage rules.

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