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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact signing protocol (EIP-191, LF-joined fields, chain ID, domain, nonce, issuedAt, SHA-256 canonical payload) and the nonce-freshness requirement. It also explicitly scopes what the tool will NOT do – never signs, pays, sends a webhook, or accepts a URL – which is exactly the kind of boundary the agent needs.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool reads before moving to the signing spec and nonce rules. The signing sentence is jargon-heavy and run-on, but every sentence carries necessary information rather than filler.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden. It references response-side concepts (nextSeq, webhookOverflowSinceSeqSeq) without defining them, leaving the event list shape and pagination semantics implicit, but the signing and recovery behavior are otherwise thoroughly covered.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema alone is useless, but the description compensates by specifying that raw_body must be the exact signed JSON envelope and enumerating how that envelope is constructed. It could clarify size limits or failure modes, but the semantic burden is largely covered.

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 (read/poll) and resource (listing-category or own-sale-settled events for one wallet-owned subscription), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling voidly_alert_poll, which is also a poll tool.

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 concrete operating conditions: each poll needs a fresh nonce, use nextSeq as afterSeq, and poll from before webhookOverflowSinceSeq to recover missed events after a webhook overflow. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-voidly_alert_poll rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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