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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds what they cannot: a 30-minute cache with computedAt/fromCache, a 5-vs-1 API-unit cost on EVM because the trace hits paid indexers, and the crucial caveat that untraced supply is not evidence either way. That last point materially changes how an agent should interpret results.

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 core operation and tightly written — nearly every sentence carries distinct guidance (scope, output reading order, cache, cost). It is a dense single paragraph, though, and the combined exclusions and cost note could be split for faster scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still tells the agent to read coveragePct before origins and how to interpret dexPct/bridgedPct — the interpretive layer schemas don't provide. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the address/chain pairing rule. It does add one decision-relevant fact not in the schema: the chain argument determines whether the call costs 5 API units or 1. Slight redundancy elsewhere keeps this below a 5.

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 — multi-hop tracing of the money behind a token's key wallets, tiered by KYC'd-exchange status — and explicitly contrasts itself with the three siblings that do adjacent graph work (get_wallet_links, get_lookalike_clusters, get_fee_fingerprint). An agent can tell exactly which question this tool answers without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit use case ("test whether several 'unrelated' holders share one funding source") plus explicit exclusions routed to named alternatives: creator activity → get_dev_tracker, launch-window buying → get_launch_bundles/get_launch_snipers. It even names the pre-flight check (get_usage) before batching across tokens.

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