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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the data source (public Qubic archive), the async workflow (first call returns status 'working' with progress, poll every 30-60s until 'ready'), the run time (a minute or two), the six-hour cache retention, cost (free), and an honest limitation ('shows who sold and what they paid, not why').

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?

Front-loaded with the 7-day scope and dense with genuinely useful content, though the single run-on sentence packs the polling procedure and caveats together and could be broken up for scanning.

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 still conveys what comes back (sellers, holding durations, purchase price, above/below verdict, plain-language reading) and fully covers the multi-call async lifecycle, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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% for the single asset parameter, and the schema already supplies the example and the pointer to qmax_list_assets. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (sellers of an asset over the last 7 days on QX/QSwap) and adds distinguishing detail — FIFO cost-basis matching and above/below-purchase reads — that separates it from siblings like qmax_get_tape or qmax_get_wallet_ledger.

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 for use (last-7-day seller history on Qubic venues) and crucial operational guidance for the async read, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when a different sibling (e.g. wallet_ledger) would be the better pick.

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