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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: multi-second latency, many archive reads, per-address rate limiting, an archive gap for roughly 10–14 June 2026, unknown cost basis for units received before the window or by transfer (so their sales are not counted as profit), QSwap liquidity changes surfacing as transfers, mid/pool-price distortion on thin markets, and a not-tax-advice disclaimer. The 'warnings' and 'truncated' fields are also disclosed as the caveat channel.

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 lead sentence front-loads purpose and payload, followed by a compact caveat block — every clause carries information. It is dense (long clauses, parenthetical asides) but not padded; only the sheer length of the first sentence slightly hurts scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (fee estimates, running position, realized/unrealized P&L, warnings, truncated). Combined with latency, rate-limit, and data-quality disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description does add that identity is a public on-chain 60-letter address and that any such identity works with no auth, but it says nothing extra about the days window beyond the schema's 1–365 range.

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 first sentence names a concrete resource — a wallet's QX and QSwap buy/sell history — and enumerates the derived outputs (price, QU net of fees, running position, average-cost realized P&L, open positions with unrealized P&L). That is far more specific than the sibling names like qmax_get_flow or qmax_get_tape, and it makes clear this is a computed ledger rather than a raw transfer stream.

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?

Usage is implied: portfolio cost-basis and P&L analysis over the last N days, read-only and safe to repeat. It also warns the call is slow and rate limited per address, which helps an agent plan. But it never states when to prefer a sibling such as qmax_get_flow for raw transfers or qmax_get_price_history for prices, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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