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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses that track records are real, that the EV is under live validation rather than proven, that each signal includes a Guard safety check and execution hint, and that the tool is non-custodial. It could go further on data freshness or what 'live Guard safety check' entails, but the honesty caveat notably mitigates overclaiming.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: they identify the output, add the essential honesty caveat, and note the non-custodial nature. Information is front-loaded and the language is direct with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers what signals include and the risk framing, which is useful given no output schema. However, it omits any explanation of the limit parameter and doesn't describe the shape or format of the results beyond high-level content, leaving some implementation details unspecified for accurate invocation.

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 input schema has only one parameter, limit, with zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions limit or its meaning. The agent is left to guess whether limit caps the number of signals or some other quantity, making this a clear gap that the description fails to fill.

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 recent buys from wallets with proven on-chain PnL, adding supplementary data like win-rate, SOL profit, a Guard safety check, and an execution hint. It names the resource and the nature of the output, though it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'—the intent is still clear.

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 this is for viewing copy-trading signals, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools like track_record, verify_claim, or guard_pricing. There are no exclusions or alternative routing suggestions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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