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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — the $0.03 USDC cost on Base, the plan-key alternative, the 45,504-wallet scope, and the found:false failure mode. It stops short of describing freshness or rate limits.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the receipt is before qualifications. Slight redundancy in restating the price twice ('Costs $0.03 USDC on Base' then '(paid $0.03, or included in a RobinX plan key)') costs a point.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the key fields and the found:false case. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the exact response shape remains unpinned.

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% and the single 'address' parameter is documented as base58 in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 for near-complete schema coverage with a one-param surface.

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 (chain-derived receipt for a Solana wallet) and enumerates what it contains (FIFO realized PnL in USD, win rate, hold style, open bags). It scopes itself to the 'fomo-routed' universe and implicitly separates from the sibling robinx_wallet by noting it is not the wallet's full history, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Clear usage context: the data covers activity through that venue only, unknown wallets return found:false, and there is a stated price/payment path. No explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing, but the venue limitation gives enough to decide when this tool applies.

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