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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which cover read-only/idempotent/open-world) by disclosing that results are ESTIMATED, that the archive has a June 2026 gap, that pre-window/transferred units have unknown cost and distort profit, that QSwap liquidity moves surface as transfers, and that thin-market mid/pool pricing can mislead. It also flags latency/cost and a non-tax-advice caveat.

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-loads the core capability and return shape before the caveats, and every sentence carries substantive information. It is dense rather than padded, though the caveat block is long enough to be slightly heavy.

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 correctly takes on the burden of enumerating return fields and the warnings/truncated flags. It also covers accuracy limits and cost, leaving only the undocumented `days` parameter as a gap.

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?

The description adds meaning for `identity` ('any 60-letter identity works'), but schema coverage is 50% and the `days` window parameter (default 180, 1-365) is never explained in either schema or description. The 'before the window' phrasing gestures at a time window without mapping it to the parameter.

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+resource: 'Every QX and QSwap buy and sell a wallet made', naming the wallet-ledger scope explicitly. It then enumerates the exact outputs (price, QU net of fees, running position, average-cost realized profit, unrealized P&L), which cleanly separates it from siblings like qmax_get_tape, qmax_get_flow, and qmax_get_liquidity_positions.

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 clear context for when to reach for it (reconstructing a wallet's trade history and cost-basis P&L) and practical guidance ('ask once and keep the answer' due to cost). It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing.

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