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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing that it is free, non-custodial, returns an ordered machine-readable workflow, appends human_activity when wallet_address is provided, and that human actions are journaled and must be reconciled. This is rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with 'read this first,' then efficiently conveys the workflow phases, tool mapping, output usage, decision points, and wallet-specific behavior without redundancy.

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 fully covers the workflow sequence, tool names, purposes, decision points, downstream output usage, and wallet override handling. Combined with the output schema and rich annotations, this is comprehensive for an orientation tool. Only the minor caller_id omission keeps this from being perfect, but overall completeness is high.

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 description thoroughly explains wallet_address (optional, public key only, appends human_activity with count, decision_type, asset, rationale, timestamp, and absent/clean behavior). However, caller_id is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema coverage this is a minor gap in parameter documentation.

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 this is a map of Crank's end-to-end trading workflow, names the ordered phases, and instructs the agent to 'read this first.' It distinguishes itself from all execution-focused sibling tools by being an orientation/meta tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: after discovering Crank via tools/list, before sequencing the full tool surface. It also clarifies when not to rely on it for value ('Descriptive only (DYOR); only execute-phase tools are value-bearing'), providing clear usage boundaries.

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