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

The description discloses that amounts are base-unit integer strings and that each program carries ok, complete, and floors flags to prevent unread or partial figures from being presented as zero. This adds significant data-integrity context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and does not contradict any 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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by critical data-format and integrity notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the data type, source (OrbitWan's own node), and handling of incomplete data, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context to understand what the tool returns. Slight gap: no explicit note on what the response structure looks like, but the flags and formatting partially cover this.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must explain the address parameter. It does so implicitly by stating 'for a Wanchain address', making the parameter's meaning clear. However, it omits details like address format or validation requirements, which could be useful but are not critical for a single obvious 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns staking, farming, lending, and deposit positions for a Wanchain address across supported programs. It names specific example programs and the scope ('every program OrbitWan reads'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_address_activity or get_address_flows.

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?

The description implies usage for position data but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. It provides context (comprehensive across programs) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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