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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it fetches trade history (external data access), calculates a score (computation), stores a profile (mutation), and optionally links a DID (side effect). It does not mention idempotency, permission requirements, or rate limits, but it covers the main behavior adequately. A small gap is the lack of detail on what happens on repeated calls (overwrite vs. update), but the core actions are transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: a two-sentence summary of the tool's purpose and process, followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract key information quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (fetching external data, computing a score, storing a profile, optional DID linking), the description covers all major steps and parameters. The output schema is available separately, so return values are not needed in the description. Minor omissions like error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid address format) are not critical for selection and invocation, but the description is still sufficient for correct usage.

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 entirely for parameter documentation. It does so thoroughly: address is described as a 0x-prefixed 42-character wallet address, platform has a default value and example, did is optional with a format example. This fully clarifies each parameter's purpose and constraints, exceeding the bare schema.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Link a prediction market wallet and sync its track record.' It then details the steps (fetch trade history, calculate score, store profile, optionally link DID). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like mt_prediction_wallet (likely read-only) or mt_prediction_leaderboard (aggregated stats). The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.

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 its use case: linking a wallet to create a prediction score profile, with optional DID linking. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the platform parameter and optional DID suggest flexibility. The context of 'sync its track record' hints at an initial setup or update action, which is enough for an agent to decide. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with related tools, but the purpose is clear.

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