WalletProfit

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a cold wallet can take a minute or more, prescribes the exact retry behavior while a run is pending, and states results are cached for 15 minutes. It also clarifies the read spans every supported chain simultaneously plus Solana and Bitcoin, which the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the address-type and latency details, and the latency/retry/cache sentences each carry actionable information. The first sentence is long due to the enumerated output set, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned categories (value, holdings, LP, lending net of debt, all-time profit). Combined with the latency, retry, and 15-minute cache semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret a pending response.

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 address parameter is already fully documented as EVM/ENS/Solana/Bitcoin. The description restates the same accepted address forms without adding format examples or normalization rules, so the baseline of 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 (Analyses) and resource (a wallet) and enumerates the exact output scope: total value, holdings, LP positions with fee rates and range status, lending positions net of debt, and all-time profit. The domain is unmistakably distinct from siblings get_market_prices and get_venue_rates, which operate on markets and venues rather than a specific address.

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?

Gives operational usage guidance: one call covers all supported chains for an EVM address, and if the response says it is still running, call again with the same address. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the siblings are in unrelated domains so exclusion guidance is less critical.

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?

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the freshness/rate-limit constraint ('Read once a minute') and the temporal shape of the data ('change over the last hour and day').

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the coverage list is front-loaded. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining scope; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately by naming the assets and the two change windows (hour/day). Cadence is covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as the exact response shape or units.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 precisely enumerates the asset classes covered (crypto, indices, rates, commodities, FX), which unambiguously identifies the resource and clearly separates it from siblings analyze_wallet and get_venue_rates. It leans on the name for the verb 'get', but the coverage list leaves no doubt about what data comes back.

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 'Read once a minute' gives a concrete polling cadence, which is a usable operational guideline. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or what it explicitly does not cover; usage is only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: 'Updated daily' freshness, the caveat that feed-driven venues report the lowest of recent readings, and that each table names its own time window. Rate limits and pagination behavior are not mentioned.

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?

Content is front-loaded ('Today's rates on one venue') and the enumeration of table types is compact. It is a single dense paragraph with little waste, though the trailing caveats about feed-driven venues and daily updates could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (four table families with named metrics) and notes freshness. Minor gaps remain: nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or how limit applies across multiple tables.

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% (venue enum, asset substring filter, limit default/max), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description explains what the returned tables contain but adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema. 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Today's rates on one venue') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: lending supply APY, borrowing costs, isolated borrow markets, and liquidity pools with fee APR/TVL/24h volume. This clearly separates it from get_market_prices and analyze_wallet in substance, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_market_prices. The agent can infer that this is the per-venue rate lookup, but nothing in the text states the condition that should select this tool over its siblings.

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