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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: venue scoping, found:false for unknown wallets, and a $0.03 USDC cost on Base. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, and the scope and cost details are compact. The parenthetical '(paid $0.03 — see instructions)' is somewhat redundant and ambiguous, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient description.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the receipt contains, the activity scope, the not-found behavior, and the cost. It is sufficient for invocation, though exact return field formatting is not specified.

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?

The schema already documents the single address parameter with base58 format (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the address must be a wallet in the fomo-routed universe and that unrecognized wallets will return found:false.

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 states it produces a chain-derived receipt for a wallet in the fomo-routed Solana trade universe and lists the specific returned data: FIFO realized PnL in USD, win rate, hold style, and open bags at cost. It also distinguishes itself from a full-history wallet receipt by explicitly narrowing scope to a single venue.

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 clear context and an important exclusion: activity is only through this venue, not the wallet's full history, and unknown wallets return found:false. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool for full-history receipts, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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