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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses operational scope (native ETH + internal txs + ERC-20), the need for a 0x address, default chain, and behavioral interpretation (holding funds vs dragging them to a fresh wallet). It does not explicitly mention read-only or safety, but the context implies a non-mutating lookup, which is acceptable.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose in caps, provides examples, and ends with requirements. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy. The structure (purpose, use cases, heuristics, requirements) is clear and scannable.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the return data represents (balance, top addresses, types of transfers). It fully addresses the tool's complexity, includes default behavior for chain, and gives practical guidance for the major use case (rug detection). Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of the address (trace a payout wallet) and the chain parameter (default ethereum and list of supported chains), reinforcing the schema's semantics and linking them to real use cases.

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 strong verb phrase 'FOLLOW THE MONEY' and specifically states it returns a wallet's balance and top withdrawal/funding addresses, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_nfts or token_security. It explicitly names the use case ('where did the mint/sale proceeds go') and differentiates from other wallet tools by focusing on fund movement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: tracing payout wallets, checking if a wallet drained project funds, and following the next hop. It also gives a classic rug-pull heuristic ('swept proceeds to a fresh wallet and went quiet') and states requirements ('Needs a 0x address; pass the collection's chain'). This is more than enough to guide selection.

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