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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes return columns, sorting/filtering options, chain constraints, and example input. While it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, it gives substantial context about what the tool returns and how it behaves, especially the critical EVM vs non-EVM chain handling.

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 information-dense yet well-organized: a concise purpose sentence, bullet-like chain rules, clear column lists, sort/filter details, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and appends operational details in a scannable format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single-chain constraint, EVM vs non-EVM, spot vs perp, sorting/filtering) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are separately defined), the description covers the essential usage pitfalls and example inputs. Missing details like pagination behavior and default sort direction are left to schema, but the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the top-level parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the `chain` parameter's nuanced behavior (required for EVM, auto-detected for non-EVM, 'hyperliquid' value), and describes `order_by` and `valueUsd` filtering. It does not explicitly cover `page` or `dateRange`, but provides an example demonstrating `dateRange` usage, adding significant meaning beyond bare schema field names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('a wallet's individual trades on a single chain') and scope (DEX swaps or Hyperliquid perpetuals, newest first). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool `token_dex_trades` by being wallet-centric, which prevents tool-selection confusion.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Call once per chain to span multiple networks', 'all'/'evm' unsupported, EVM wallets MUST pass `chain`, non-EVM auto-detected, and 'hyperliquid' for perp trades. It also names the sibling alternative `token_dex_trades` for token-centric needs, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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