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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly explains that gains are only realized from confirmed sells or redeems, and not until a finished market is redeemed. This is significant behavioral context beyond what a typical PnL tool would state, though it omits response format details.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core functionality and then provide a clarifying note. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description explains the core concept well, but the absence of an output schema and the mismatch between mentioning a 'specific wallet address' and the schema lacking such a parameter create gaps. The simple parameter set is fully covered, but the tool's context is incomplete without knowing how the wallet is identified or what the response looks like.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description mentions 'time range and granularity' which aligns with start_time, end_time, and granularity, but does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches realized PnL for a wallet with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from Polymarket's dashboard by noting the difference between realized and unrealized PnL. However, the schema does not include a wallet address parameter, creating ambiguity about how the wallet is specified.

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 provides context on when to use this tool by explaining it tracks realized gains only, unlike the dashboard's unrealized PnL. This implies the tool is appropriate when realized PnL is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the note serves as useful guidance.

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