I'm going to say no, and here's why. No doubt she does have some good tennis intelligence. But, I think people confuse "crafty" and "variety" with "intelligence". Radwaska shows has a lot of pleasing-to-the-eye shots - drop shots, slices, short angles, lobs, volleys, etc. But, in and of themselves, they're just shots. Sometimes she deploys those shots intelligently and she looks like a genius because she's frustrating her opponent, planting doubt in their mind, making them look foolish. It's fun to watch, makes her look a step ahead of her opponent, makes her look "smart." And, if she deploys those shots effectively, it is smart.
That's been true in tennis forever. Whenever a player doesn't win with brute power and athelticism, they're thought of as more intelligent, "smart" players.
But, Radwa doesn't have the overall record in terms of significant wins over top players or Slam titles to earn "most intellingent of all time honors". Hingis, for example, used variety and crafitness to achieve far more. And, seriously, why wouldn't even a generational after-thought like Conchita Martinez with her moonballs, slices, great passing shots, occasional hard shots be considered just as intelligent? Like Hingis, she used her skills to achieve far more than Radwanska (33 titles on all surfaces, a Wimbledon title, 3 Slam finals on 3 different surfaces).
Also, do people ever consider when the craftiness and variety are not working. How intelligent or smart is it to to keep on retrieving from far behind the baseline, throwing in an occasional drop shot (even if it's nice to look at), when you're opponent is having their way with you? How smart is it to never attempt to improve a weak-for-a-top-player serve when so many players is so many big matches have exploited it?
She's a great player, and often is intelligent. But, she has a lot more to achieve before I'd slap a "most intelligent player of all time" tag on her.