signals

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The output nature is hinted but not fully specified.

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 sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded purpose. Slightly long but efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description lacks details on return format (e.g., score scale, risk categories). Missing context on authentication, error cases, or rate limits. Incomplete for a standalone tool.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It adds meaning to 'venue' by listing enum values with full names ('Hyperliquid' and 'Polymarket'), and clarifies 'address' is the wallet address. However, it omits address format or constraints.

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's action ('look up') and resource ('specific wallet's worth-copying read'), and mentions venue options ('hl' or 'pm'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_copyable_traders' which list traders, not analyze a single wallet.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_copyable_traders', 'find_pm_traders'). No explicit when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses pre-gating by decay, deleverage, alpha-vs-beta, and output fields including realizability score, risk grade, etc. Sufficiently transparent.

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-sentence paragraph is information-dense but slightly verbose; front-loads purpose but could be more concise.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates output fields. Two simple params, no required fields. Complete enough for agent to use correctly.

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 100%, description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states specific action ('List Hyperliquid traders that are actually copyable AND realizable'), specifies filtering criteria, and distinguishes from sibling tools by rejecting 'noisy top trader lists'.

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?

Explicit use case provided: 'Use when you need vetted copy candidates, not noisy top trader lists.' Clear context, though not formal when-not-to-use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation without mentioning any destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose the effect of the 'limit' parameter, pagination, sorting, or any authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that effectively conveys the tool's output and key context without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by relevant output fields.

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?

Description covers the purpose and output fields but omits explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not define terms like 'edge-family' or 'invisible-maker volume'. With no output schema, more detail on the response format would be beneficial.

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 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter ('limit') at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema; the agent is left to infer the parameter's purpose from its name.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('Polymarket wallets'), and the specific attributes returned (copyability classification, PnL, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling by noting that PM traders are structurally near-uncopyable, contrasting with find_copyable_traders.

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?

Provides context that PM traders are near-uncopyable and the tool is useful for 'edge-family research', implying it is not for finding copyable traders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (verdict, risk score, CAGR, etc.) and the ranking nature, but does not mention any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. For a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists criteria and return fields. It is concise but slightly dense; no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description explains the tool's purpose and output fields but fails to describe the limit parameter or the ranking order (ascending/descending). Somewhat incomplete for a parameterized list.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage entirely unclear.

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 lists Hyperliquid vaults ranked by allocation-worthiness, specifies criteria (Sharpe, drawdown, etc.), and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_wallet and find_copyable_traders.

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 evaluating vaults but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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