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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful epistemic caveats ('Not advice', 'events are not measurements'), but does not describe rate limits, pagination, or output shape beyond brief parentheticals. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses inline code to make mode names scannable. The final caveat sentence is slightly cryptic ('money never moves a meter number') but short enough not to bloat.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the modes, default, and limit semantics, and gives brief return hints ('one-liners', 'typed events', 'holdings, swaps, fees'). It could say more about what 'tape' and 'pulse' actually return, but the core call decision is supported.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines the `what` values, marks 'ticker' as default, explains that `limit` means days for 'pools' and top N for 'holders', and says `kind` filters 'pulse'. It does not fully explain the default `limit=0` behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 opens with a specific resource and verb: 'Market and event reads.' It then enumerates the distinct views ('tape', 'pools', 'holders', 'ticker', 'pulse'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only market/event surface. The opaque tool name 'wire' and lack of explicit sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the mode list: use 'ticker' for default event one-liners, 'pulse' for typed events filtered by `kind`, and so on. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many siblings, so it remains minimum viable.

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