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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real context the annotations cannot: plan gating with the specific 403 error code, plus output traits (amounts rounded, wallets identified by handle). It doesn't state result limits or pagination, which keeps it off 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core definition is front-loaded ahead of the plan-gating parenthetical. The output-format note is compact and earns its place.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what the tool returns, who can call it, and how values are presented. The remaining gap is that the filtering parameters are never mentioned, so an agent must read the schema to learn that results can be narrowed.

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 100%, so q, source, and category are already documented at the field level, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics — notably it never clarifies the official-vs-mine distinction on source or how q matching works.

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 names a specific resource and predicate: markets where multiple smart-money wallets took the same side in a short window. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like leaderboard and radar, though it opens with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb (list/return), leaving the read operation implicit.

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 access guidance (Pro and Max plans required, 403 plan_required otherwise), which is useful before calling. It does not say when to prefer this over radar or leaderboard, nor what a caller should do if they only have a free plan.

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