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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Returns' (implying read-only) and describes the data scope, but omits key details such as pagination behavior, sorting, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise use case. No wasted words; structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is only two sentences and fails to address the return format, pagination (limit), the notification_message parameter, or any behavioral details. It is insufficient for the complexity and lack of structured support.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning by clarifying that the wallet can be sender or recipient, but it does not elaborate on defaults, enums, or the unusual notification_message parameter. 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('ERC1155 share transfers') scoped to a wallet as sender or recipient. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_position_transfers or get_trader_activity.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('tracing what positions a whale has moved off-exchange'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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