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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it enumerates return fields, explains the UNVERIFIABLE verdict, and notes that it recomputes from on-chain history 'rather than estimating.' This complements the read-only/idempotent annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences that front-load the primary action and then detail outputs and edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing return values (verdict, confidence, P/L, coin count, reason codes, flags) and the special UNVERIFIABLE behavior. It is complete for a tool with one parameter and clear annotations.

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 already has a clear description for the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Recomputes the realized SOL profit and loss... and returns a trust verdict.' It specifies the exact resource (Solana wallet) and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_token_safety or check_trade_cost by focusing on wallet trust assessment.

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 usage for evaluating wallet trust based on realized P/L, providing context about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over siblings or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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