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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that three free queries are executed, reports structure only, and clarifies what the tool proves (shared control/infrastructure) and does not prove (fraud). This is high behavioral transparency.

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 a single energetic paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It is concise for the content it covers, though the dramatic tone and example could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 absence of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's operation, result type (structure only), limitations, and an illustrative example. It covers the necessary context for agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema for 'chain' and 'address'; it merely restates the token contract context.

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 clearly states the tool traces the funding source of a token and exposes other tokens funded by the same wallet. It uses specific verbs like 'follows the money backwards', making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for uncovering hidden clusters of related tokens, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like till_funder_history or till_kya, nor does it state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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