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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it returns addresses only, compares top wallets vs all wallets, and excludes specific actor types. It does not mention pagination or data freshness, but for a read-only tool with rich annotations, this is adequate.

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 tight sentences: the first packs the core content and output metrics, the second states exclusions. No filler, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase earns its place.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient detail for correct invocation. It lists return metrics, clarifies address-only results, and scopes the trader universe. Minor gaps like time windows are not critical for calling the tool 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 the 'symbol' parameter already described by examples (ETHUSD, BTCUSD, NVDA). The description adds the context that the symbol is traded on DEXes, reinforcing the meaning, but does not introduce new parameter requirements or format nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool returns the most profitable wallets trading a symbol on DEXes, with specific metrics (realized/unrealized PnL, win rate, holding time, net flow). It distinguishes itself by excluding arbitrage, MEV, bots, and routers, which differentiates it from generic market or activity tools. The verb is implicit in the name 'get' but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when you need smart money wallet flows for a symbol) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The exclusion of certain wallet types is a scope clarification rather than usage routing. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_top_activity, analyze_token) but no comparative direction is given.

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