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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: single-venue scope, bounded upstream concurrency, and per-wallet failure reporting. It stops short of describing return format or throttling specifics.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage instruction, each adding distinct information (scope, concurrency/failure behavior, optional param). No 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?

For a batch read tool with no output schema, it covers scope, venue limitation, and partial-failure handling while annotations carry the safety profile. The only meaningful gap is that the dex parameter is never named or explained.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the optional asset for named markets and the two-to-five wallet bound, and 'one venue' hints at the dex parameter, but dex and the address format are never explicitly documented.

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 and resource (positions of two to five wallets in one batch call) and its batch scope clearly distinguishes it from the singular wallet-positions sibling. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the 2-5 wallet bound makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'Use for ... for example after a ranking' gives a concrete workflow trigger for selecting this tool. It provides clear usage context but names no exclusions or the single-wallet sibling an agent should use instead for one address.

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