Approvals — counts + top-3 risks (FREE)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns a real result, and requires no wallet, which partly conveys its non-destructive nature. However, it does not explain limitations such as data freshness, error behaviors, or why a wallet is not needed. This is basic but not exhaustive.

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: three short sentences, with the 'FREE' tag front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the output, clarifying the no-wallet behavior, and offering an upgrade path. 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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context: what the tool returns (counts and top-3 risks), the fact it is free, and the upgrade option. It does not specify the exact result structure, but for a quick-risk tool this is sufficient. It could be slightly more detailed about the output shape.

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 already covers both parameters fully (address and chain). The description merely references {address, chain} without adding any additional meaning, format details, or usage nuances beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 tool's function: providing approval counts and top-3 riskiest spenders for a given address and chain. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'approvals' tool by explicitly noting the free tier offers limited data (top-3 risks) versus the full ranking and revoke calldata.

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 when to use this tool: for a free, quick risk overview without wallet connection. It also points to the upgrade path to 'approvals' for more detailed results. However, it does not contrast with other free sibling tools like 'token_safety_free', so the guidance is not fully explicit about alternatives.

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