hyperd.wallet.risk

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

With no annotations, the description discloses data sources, expected outputs (sanctioned flag, 0-100 score), and cost ($0.10). It does not mention idempotency, side effects, or latency, but the core behavioral traits are clear.

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 a concise three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, data sources/outputs, cost. 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (sanctioned flag + score). It also mentions cost. However, it could cover error conditions or response format in more detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., no elaboration on 'deep' cross-check). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check a wallet's risk profile' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing data sources (Chainalysis, GoPlus) and outputs (sanctioned flag + heuristic score), making it clear what this tool does uniquely.

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 use when checking risk, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like hyperd.wallet.anomaly or hyperd.wallet.persona. It does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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