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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real context beyond that: results are broken out per token into realised versus open PnL, and the time window varies by chain and is reported back, warning the agent not to assume a fixed interval.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core definition front-loaded and the window caveat following it. Every clause carries information.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: per-token realised and open PnL plus the applicable window. Nothing critical is missing for a two-parameter read-only tool, though it never clarifies chain-specific window semantics or result shape beyond the token breakdown.

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%: the chain enum, its pointer to chord_chains, and the address-format note for wallet are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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 resource and metric: a wallet's realised and open PnL, per token, on one chain. That is materially more precise than the bare title 'Wallet PnL'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby chord_wallet_trades sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The phrase 'on one chain' hints that per-chain calls are required, but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over chord_wallet_trades or chord_overview for wallet analysis.

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