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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the analysis window (last 20,000 curve trades), cost and quota ($0.01/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), and error semantics (isError, not charged). It also tells the agent how to interpret results (smart money, sniper bot, dumper, dev).

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-loaded with the core capability and output list, then progressively adds usage, pricing, and error behavior. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; the long parenthetical URL is the one mildly bulky element.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, and the description still covers scope, cost, failure behavior, and interpretation guidance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or budget calls is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks by clarifying that the limit counts 'curve trades' and that analysis is capped at the last 20,000 — a semantic nuance beyond the bare 'how many recent trades' schema text.

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 resource and scope: 'Any wallet's pump.fun trading record' followed by the exact outputs (realized PnL, win rate, hold time, frequency, tokens launched). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming counterparty_check and copy_backtest and describing when each is preferred.

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 an explicit 'When to use' clause plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them (deal/no-deal verdict vs. copy-trade viability). It even flags that counterparty_check lives on a different server with its URL, so routing decisions are unambiguous.

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