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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds valuable output context by naming the ranked fields (wallet, pnlUsd, winRate, trades, rank), which is especially useful because there is no output schema. It does not cover freshness, rate limits, or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields and usage routing, making it easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, and alternative routing well. The main gap is parameter explanation, but the schema's defaults and enum allow an agent to invoke it correctly, so it is nearly complete.

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 compensate, but it only vaguely refers to 'a given time window' and never mentions the limit parameter, its default, or the allowed window values (24h/7d/30d). The schema provides types, defaults, and an enum, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond that.

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 and resource: ranks top KOL traders by P&L over a time window, and explicitly lists the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_coin_intel and get_token_holders for the coin-holding question.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('find which trader wallets are worth following') and names the alternative tools for a related but different need. The routing condition is clear and actionable.

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