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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds important context beyond them: analysis is capped at the last 20,000 curve trades, pricing is $0.01 per call with 10 free/day, and x402 payment options appear after the free tier. It also discloses error behavior and that upstream failures are not charged, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves efficiently through use cases, alternatives, pricing, and errors. Despite being longer than average, every sentence carries actionable information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the analysis scope, sibling alternatives, pricing, error behavior, and the limit cap, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains the wallet address format and the 100-20000 limit. The description reinforces the 20,000-trade scope but does not add meaningfully more parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieving a wallet's pump.fun trading record, including realized PnL, win rate, hold time, bot/human frequency, and launched tokens. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like pump_token, pump_history, and smart_money because it profiles a wallet rather than a token, trade, or aggregate set.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for a trader's pump.fun performance, use counterparty_check for a quick deal/no-deal verdict, and use copy_backtest to test copy-trading. The named alternatives and their conditions leave little to inference.

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