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. The description adds real context the annotations do not: the view key can read but never spend, it is used in a single-use view-only wallet and discarded, and it lists the exact returned fields. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes, so not 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose before the when/do-not-use/returns/security sections, and each block is purposeful. It is on the longer side and the 'view-only wallet and discarded' clause is a slight digression, but there is minimal waste.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (tx_count, received_total_xmr, daily[], top_amounts[], transfers[], window.complete) and covers required inputs and the security model. An agent has everything needed to call 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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema, including the 1-2000 limit, 1-30 period_days, and include_pending default. The description only restates the window and view-key facets, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline 3.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Historical incoming-payment ledger for one Monero address, computed with a view key') and immediately scopes what it computes (per-day counts/totals, top amounts, window). An agent can distinguish it from xmr_get_transaction and xmr_verify_payment without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use' (merchant/treasury reconciliation over a period, which a block explorer cannot do for Monero) and 'Do not use' with named alternatives: xmr_verify_payment for a single tx and xmr_wallet_balance for balances. Nothing 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.