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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real value on top: the cumulativePnl field is a compatibility alias, historical position marks are unavailable, values are nominal collateral units, and results are cached ~15 minutes. These are exactly the data-semantics traps an agent would otherwise misreport; only pagination/rate-limit behavior is left unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, then the field-alias caveat, then units, then caching. Every sentence carries information; only the imperative 'Do not describe this as P&L' is arguably framing rather than tool behavior, though it is useful against misreporting.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the things the schema cannot: deprecation, units, alias semantics, cache staleness. The only gap is that the coverage window and ordering of the returned cash-flow history are never stated.

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% for the single address parameter (pattern plus 'Wallet address'), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the correct baseline when the schema is complete.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Deprecated indexed cash-flow history for a wallet.' It immediately flags deprecation and explicitly disclaims the P&L/equity framing, which separates it from siblings such as problee_get_positions or problee_get_balance that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Deprecation is stated up front, which implicitly tells the agent to avoid relying on this for new work, but no replacement sibling is named and no when-to-use condition is given. The agent must infer that historical equity marks should be fetched elsewhere without being told where.

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