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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it analyzes up to 20,000 curve trades and mentions pricing ($0.01 per call, 10 free/day). These details go beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a fuller picture.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and metrics, the second provides usage guidance and cost. No filler words, and the most important info (what it does) is front-loaded. It earns its place with high information density.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the resource, the scope of analysis, the decision-making use case, and cost. Although it doesn't specify the output format, that is not required given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit differentiation from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (only 'wallet' has a description; 'limit' has no description but has default/min/max). The description indirectly explains 'limit' by mentioning '20,000 curve trades,' which maps to the maximum. It doesn't fully explain parameter semantics, but it adds some value beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline for average coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Any wallet's pump.fun trading record') and lists concrete metrics (realized PnL, win rate, hold time, frequency, tokens launched). It also names the judgment categories (smart money, sniper bot, serial dumper, dev), which clearly distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like pump_launches or pump_dev.

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 description explicitly says 'Use it to judge whether a wallet is smart money, a sniper bot, a serial dumper or a dev,' which provides clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for agents deciding among siblings.

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