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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so credit goes to the added commercial behavior: it is free, requires no payment and no wallet. That cost/argument-free trait is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, though response content behavior is not detailed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with '[FREE]' and the fact it is a sample, then closes with the cost context. Slightly redundant in restating the parenthetical title inside the description, but otherwise efficient.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately states this returns a sample response showing the shape of wallet_profile, which is exactly what an agent needs to know for a preview endpoint. Nothing essential for calling a zero-argument preview 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-coverage baseline is 4. The description confirms 'no arguments needed', which is consistent with the empty input schema and adds clarifying value.

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 resource (a sample response for wallet_profile) and its scope (activity, balances, OFAC check, risk summary), and its name/description make clear it is the free preview variant. An agent can distinguish it from the paid wallet_profile sibling without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: 'so you can see the shape before paying 0.03 USDC', which routes the agent to this preview ahead of the paid call. It does not explicitly say 'use wallet_profile (with a wallet argument) when you need real data', so the alternative half of the decision is only implied.

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