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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that all amounts are base-unit integer strings and that the window is 1 to 90 days. This helps an agent parse results correctly without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core result is stated first, followed by the window constraint and amount format, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only endpoint with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the result granularity, the address scope, the allowable window, and the amount representation. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though return-structure details are not elaborated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning for both parameters indirectly: address is a Wanchain address and days corresponds to a window of 1 to 90 days. However, it does not explicitly mention the default of 30 days or parameter names, leaving some inference required.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: per-token in/out sums and native WAN flows for a Wanchain address over a time window. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_address_activity or get_address_summary.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It states the supported window length but does not describe use cases, exclusions, or how it differs from related address tools.

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