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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond by disclosing the $0.02-per-call price, the 10 free/day quota, the x402 payment-required path, the 30-minute rebuild cadence, and that invalid input or upstream failures return isError uncharged. It does not, however, describe the freshness/latency of the live feed beyond the window parameter. Strong behavioral disclosure.

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 core output is front-loaded in the first sentence before the sortable/feed details, and the when-to-use, price, and error clauses are ordered usefully. It is dense and multi-clause, but nearly every clause adds a distinct fact rather than padding.

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 re-explained, and the description still covers pricing, quota, error behavior, refresh cadence, ranking basis, and the natural follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 would be 3, but the description adds meaning by tying window_min to the buying_now feed ('last N minutes'), limit to the leaderboard ('top 50'), and sort to PnL/win-rate/ROI. It clarifies which param drives which half of the response, which the schema alone does not.

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 precise verb+resource (a wallet leaderboard ranked by realized PnL plus a live buying feed) and immediately scopes it: 'fully-closed curve positions (min 8 closed, rebuilt every 30 min)'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pump_wallet and copy_backtest.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('To find wallets worth watching') and routes the agent to the next step with a named alternative ('then copy_backtest to test copying one'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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