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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a heuristic inference rather than a proven-link report, and EVM calls cost 5 API units instead of 1 because they run against paid indexers. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, sibling differentiation, when-to-use, when-not-to-use with sibling alternatives, and cost/context. The core concept is front-loaded, and the exclusions are grouped clearly. Length is justified given the richness of routing and cost information.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema and safety-bearing annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool detects, how it differs from alternatives, when to use it, what it is not for, and an important cost caveat for EVM chains. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including chain enum semantics, address formats, validation rules, and default behavior, so the description carries no additional semantic burden. It only mentions 'address and chain' generically and notes the EVM cost difference. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, though it does not need to.

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 opens with a concrete definition: clusters of wallets around one token that behave as a single actor via buy sizing and timing, explicitly distinguishing this behavioral inference from get_wallet_links' proven links. The verb 'clusters' and the resource ('wallets around one token') make the tool's purpose unmistakable, and the explicit contrast with sibling tools removes ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when supply looks distributed across small wallets and the insider graph comes back clean, and corroborate with get_fee_fingerprint on Solana. It also names exclusions with alternatives: not for proven transfer links (get_wallet_links), funding sources (get_funding_sources), or launch-window coordination (get_launch_bundles). This is exemplary usage routing.

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