dEdge Solana Wallet Research

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: token labels are untrusted external text (a prompt-injection warning) and no trades are executed. It says nothing about rate limits or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trust caveat, then the safety boundary. No filler and nothing buried.

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, but the description sketches the return payload ('market data and risk flags'), which is the key thing an agent needs to know. It omits any mention of failure modes or data freshness, keeping it short of complete.

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% and the address parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the base58 pattern and the 'never send a private key' warning. The description adds no further meaning about the address argument, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading a public Solana *token* summary with market data and risk flags. The token scope implicitly separates it from the wallet-oriented siblings (get_top_wallets, get_wallet_summary), though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the wallet siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Does not execute trades' is a safety boundary, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the noun alone.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the data is public (no auth/ownership scoping), the window is a fixed recent 15 days (a recency constraint the agent must not assume it can widen), and results are historical performance only. It doesn't say whether the window is rolling or how fresh the data is, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope; the second sentence is a necessary interpretive warning rather than 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read with rich annotations, the description covers what the data is, its scope (public, 15-day window) and its interpretation limits. It could note the shape of a returned entry (address plus net SOL) to fully close the gap, but nothing critical 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4. The 15-day window note usefully clarifies that no time-range parameter exists to override.

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 ('Read the public Solana wallet leaderboard') plus the ranking metric and time window, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_wallet_summary and get_token_summary by being a multi-wallet ranking, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter — reach for this when a ranking/leaderboard view is wanted — but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use get_wallet_summary instead if…' routing. The only directive sentence is a caveat about interpreting results, not about selecting the tool.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the data is cached, the snapshot window is 15 days, and a miss returns 'none' rather than computing live. It does not disclose staleness policy or rate/availability behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the snapshot window and the cache-miss semantics. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter cached read with an output-schema-free response, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs, including the 'none' return case. It omits what fields the summary contains and how stale the cache may be, minor gaps that keep it at 4.

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 100%, with the address format, base58 pattern and the 'never send a private key' warning already in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the address parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a cached public Solana wallet trading summary') with scope qualifiers that separate it from get_token_summary and get_top_wallets. An agent can tell immediately this is a per-wallet cached read, not a token or leaderboard query.

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?

'Does not trigger fresh analysis' clearly delimits when this tool is appropriate versus a fresh-computation path, and 'none means not cached' sets the expected response for a miss. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to call when the cache is empty, so the agent must infer the fallback.

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