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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds real contextual value: no API key required, the distinction between matched-trade flow fields and separately-sourced provider positions/PnL, as-of markers, and the caveat that 'absence of a row is not proof of inactivity.' That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations, though it stops short of rate limits or caching behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information. The middle sentences on CoinRithm flow fields and provider PnL are dense but earn their place; nothing is purely filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is usage routing, which is only implicit. For a two-param read tool this is close to complete, missing only explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling whale tools.

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% and both params are fully documented in the schema (venue enum, address pattern, provenance of the address). The description's phrase 'one supported ... venue and address' merely restates the two params without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('wallet movement detail for one supported on-chain prediction-market venue and address') and constrains scope to a single wallet, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool pm_data_whales. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (free public single-wallet lookup) but never explicitly says when to reach for this versus pm_data_whales or pm_data_whale_wallets, nor any prerequisite beyond 'no API key.' The routing hint exists only in the wallet param schema, not in the tool description.

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