solana-wallet-intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: it is free and does not spend USDC. For a no-parameter health check, this covers the main side-effect and cost concerns, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the cost constraint. 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?

For a zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation and its cost behavior. It could mention the expected response shape, but the simplicity of a ping makes that a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain.

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 states a specific purpose: a health check. It does not name siblings, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from the wallet- and token-related tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'Free health check' implies using it to check service availability without incurring cost. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other tools or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that risky entries carry plain-English risk flags, that thin/new/wash-like books are ranked down, and that calls cost $0.005 USDC. Payment cost and ranking bias are behaviors not derivable from schema. It stops short of stating read-only status or response ordering/pagination details.

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?

Lead sentence front-loads resource and core fields, followed by enrichment signals, ranking behavior, and cost. Dense but each sentence adds information; the field enumeration is a little list-heavy but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly describes the return shape in detail (holder concentration, authorities, LP lock/burn, sniper/bundle share, risk flags). Only minor gaps remain: read-only nature and what a 'short summary' contains are unspecified.

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?

Only one optional parameter (limit) and the schema already documents it fully ('1 to 25, default 15'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about limit, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific resource and scope: trending Solana tokens, with the exact fields returned (liquidity, 24h volume, pair age, summary). No sibling tool covers token discovery, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery/scanning tool for token opportunities. There is no explicit 'use when' or exclusion guidance, though the siblings (wallet_*) do not compete for this job.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses the $0.02 USDC cost, states that labeled exchange hot wallets are not used as a cluster, and says the return includes plain-language sybil risk reasons. It stops short of describing read-only behavior, rate limits, or error conditions, but the pricing and exclusion rules are useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then adds only the details that matter: the CEX exclusion, the optional peers behavior, and the cost. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to carry the explanatory burden. It covers the main workflow, the return concept (cluster id plus risk reasons), one important exclusion, the peer comparison limit, and the price, which is largely sufficient for a two-parameter analysis tool. Minor gaps remain around output shape and operational constraints.

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 the schema already documents that address is a Solana wallet address and peers is a comma-separated list of up to 8 wallets. The description's mention of 'Optional peers compares up to 8 other wallets' largely repeats the schema, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it finds a wallet's first SOL funder, flags shared funders or CEX deposit addresses, and returns a cluster id with sybil risk reasons. That is far clearer than a generic wallet lookup, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wallet_profile tool, which likely also analyzes wallets.

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 use case is implied through terms like 'sybil risk reasons' and 'cluster id,' and the peers parameter is described as comparing other wallets. However, the description never states when to choose this over wallet_profile or other siblings, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important trait: the call costs $0.01 USDC, which the agent needs to know before invoking. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens for an unknown/empty wallet, and whether the payment is charged on failure.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact given the space (the cost) is placed last for emphasis. It is efficient, though the front-loading favors output contents over what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return values, and it does list them (holdings, summary, windowed PnL, win rate, labels). But for a paid tool it leaves the failure/charging behavior and the address preconditions unstated, which an agent needs before spending $0.01 USDC.

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% and there is only one parameter ('address', documented as a Solana wallet address), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about the address beyond implicitly assuming it identifies the wallet whose profile is returned. Baseline 3 applies.

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 enumerates the payload (holdings, PnL, win rate, labels) but never states the action verb — it reads as a return-value list rather than 'fetch a wallet's profile'. An agent can infer the intent from the tool name and the single address parameter, but the purpose is implied rather than stated, and there is no differentiation from siblings like wallet_funding.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus wallet_funding or token_trending, and no preconditions such as requiring a valid Solana address. The only usage-adjacent signal is the $0.01 USDC cost, which tells the agent it's a paid call but not when it's the right call.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral facts: this is a paid call at $0.002 USDC and a free teaser exists at /wallet/preview. It does not explain the length of the 'window' used for PnL/win rate, whether the call is cached, latency, or what happens for an unknown/dormant address.

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?

Two dense sentences with the value proposition and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the teaser/full-report routing and cost. No filler, every clause carries information an agent needs for selection.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned metrics and pricing, which is most of what a caller needs. The main gap is the undefined 'window' behind the PnL and win-rate figures, which affects interpretation of results.

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% for the single 'address' parameter ('Solana wallet address'), so the schema already provides the required semantics. The description adds no further constraint on the address (e.g., chain scope or validation), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (one wallet) and enumerates the returned metrics (windowed realized PnL, win rate, closed trades, last active, flags). It implicitly separates itself from the deeper report by naming /wallet/profile as the full version, though it references an endpoint rather than the sibling tool name wallet_profile.

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 word 'cheap' plus the free-teaser/full-report split implies this is the low-cost screening step before escalating, and the price is stated. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over wallet_profile or wallet_funding, leaving the escalation condition for the agent to infer.

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