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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses pricing ($0.02/call, from shop credits, top-ups paused), free conditions (404/empty, 503 chain-down, failed calls), and that results are 'facts only, not investment advice.' This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 purpose and packs billing/error behavior efficiently into one paragraph. It is dense but every clause about cost and failure modes earns its place; slightly overstuffed for a single sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return payload (per-token in/out/net table, USD totals, swap count, top 5 counterparties) thoroughly. Complete enough for correct invocation, though the sibling differentiation gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so days, limit, and address are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely reinforces a time window and the returned fields; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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: 'What a Base wallet bought, sold and moved lately' with concrete output fields. It reads as an activity feed and is distinguishable from wallet_pnl/wallet_verdict by content, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 by the 'lately' activity framing and the mention of a time window, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs wallet_pnl or wallet_verdict, nor when-not guidance. The agent must infer the choice.

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