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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it recomputes rather than trusts cached data, and notably returns UNVERIFIABLE rather than estimating when history can't be reconstructed. It does not discuss rate limits, cost, or latency.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then enumerates return fields and the UNVERIFIABLE fallback in tight sentences. Slightly list-heavy, but with no output schema this enumeration earns its place rather than padding.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers what is returned (verdict enum, confidence, PnL, coin count, reason codes, sniper flags) and the UNVERIFIABLE edge case. Complete enough for correct invocation, though sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Only one parameter (address) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents format and constraints (base58, 32-44 chars). The description adds no extra meaning about the address argument, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: recomputes realized SOL PnL from on-chain history and returns a trust verdict for a Solana wallet. Clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_wallet_forensics, which an agent might 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?

Usage is implied (call it to get a trust verdict on a wallet) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to or away from siblings like check_wallet_forensics or check_token_safety. Nothing misleading, but the agent must infer selection.

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