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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a lot: a typed PROVIDER_DOWN refusal with nothing charged, an automatic refund on refusal, a structured payment_required challenge instead of fabricated data, and the payment rail mechanics. This is well above the annotation baseline. The one tension is that readOnlyHint=true sits alongside a tool that debits USDC, which the description never reconciles, though the payment is an access rail rather than a data mutation.

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 text is repetitive and badly ordered: 'after paying, poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end' appears twice, the payment rail is explained across two separate blocks, and the actual purpose of the tool lands in the middle rather than first. It is not brief and the reader must reassemble the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the unusual payment/refusal behavior and the current unwired state. What is missing is the semantics of the required `address` parameter and any differentiation from the wallet sibling, which an agent needs in order to invoke the right tool.

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 carry all three parameters, and it only partially does. It explains `payer` well — what it is and the three ways to supply it (tool argument, x-tollbridge-payer header, x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE) — which adds real meaning beyond the bare regex in the schema. But `address` (presumably the wallet being inspected) is never defined, and `chain` is only implied by the const and the 'on base' phrasing.

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 does state a concrete resource and output set: 'Wallet state machine on base (WATCHING → ACCUMULATING → HIGH_CONVICTION → DISTRIBUTING → EXITING): current state, since, sample adequacy, 30d net flow and first-seen.' That is specific enough for an agent to know what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling tollbridge_wallet_intelligence, and the purpose is buried behind payment and DEFERRED boilerplate rather than front-loaded.

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?

It gives a post-call flow ('after paying, poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end') and a critical operational caveat that the indexer is unwired and calls currently refuse, which is real when-to-use guidance. But it gives no condition for choosing this over tollbridge_wallet_intelligence or the other wallet tools, and the DEFERRED note makes the tool effectively unusable with no stated alternative.

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