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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the $0.02 cost, that credits come from clink's existing shop key with top-ups paused, that failed/empty calls are free, and the exact meanings of 400, 404, and 503 responses. It also explains that 404 means no swaps in the window and 503 means the chain read is down, which materially affects invocation expectations.

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 front-loads the report-card contents and then covers pricing and error behavior, which is dense but relevant information for a paid tool. It is slightly long, but every sentence provides useful operational context rather than 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return contents and operational behavior; it does both by enumerating the report-card fields and covering cost, failure modes, and free-call behavior. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret common responses.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the enum for days and the address format. The description adds only broad context ('one Base wallet' and a 'window') without new syntax or format details, 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 identifies a single-wallet trader report card and enumerates the specific metrics returned (realized P&L, win rate, positions, top wins/losses, grade). It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like wallet_verdict or wallet_activity.

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 by calling itself a 'trader report card for one Base wallet' and notes the address must not be a contract, but it never states when to use this tool versus wallet_verdict, wallet_activity, or other wallet tools. No explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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