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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantive extras beyond them: the 20k trade analysis cap, pricing ($0.01/call, 10 free/day, x402 payment-required result), and error behavior (isError on invalid input or upstream failure, not charged). This is exactly the value-add structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff, then usage, alternatives, price, and errors in compact sentences. Slightly dense with the pricing/payment aside, but every sentence carries actionable information for an agent deciding whether and how to call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Purpose, scope, sibling routing, cost, and failure modes are all covered; nothing needed to invoke 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 both wallet and limit are already documented with pattern, range, and default. The description restates the 20k cap but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a fully-covered two-param schema.

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+resource ('Any wallet's pump.fun trading record') and enumerates the returned fields: realized PnL, win rate, hold time, frequency, launched tokens. It also bounds the scope ('up to the last 20,000 curve trades'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' clause plus two named alternatives with their selecting conditions: counterparty_check for a quick deal/no-deal verdict, copy_backtest to test copy-trading. Routing is unambiguous.

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