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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds an important behavioral nuance: it only counts wallets that have sold out of tokens, which is not inferable from annotations. It does not disclose any additional side effects or limitations, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose, then adds relevant detail on output and the counting rule. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause contributes value.

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 simple, read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what data it returns, and the key condition for inclusion. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 has zero parameters and an empty schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameter syntax or meaning; it simply describes the fixed output criteria.

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 wallets that closed the most profit in the last 24 hours, specifying the resource (wallets), action (closed profit), and time window. It also details the output fields (profit taken, win rate, biggest win) and a key condition (only sold-out tokens count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like smart_money or wallet_history.

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 a clear use case (finding top profit-taking wallets) and even provides a filtering condition (only tokens a wallet has sold out of). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its niche from the name and content.

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