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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 15-second polling interval, records only NEW transactions, and explains the poll-token fallback. It does not mention response format, retention, or error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 compact and well-structured: core action first, then behavioral detail, then conditional guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 monitoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: start monitoring, poll interval, new-transaction recording, webhook vs poll-token behavior, and next step via get_alerts. It does not state what the immediate response contains or what happens on invalid input, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds conditional meaning for webhook_url: it must be https, and omitting it triggers a poll-token flow. It does not add much beyond the schema for wallet or label, but the added webhook semantics justify a 4.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Start monitoring a Solana wallet.' It further clarifies the tool's behavior (polls every 15s, records new transactions) and distinguishes it from get_alerts by explaining the follow-up flow, rather than merely repeating the tool name.

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 gives clear conditional usage guidance: pass webhook_url if webhooks are possible, otherwise omit it and call get_alerts with the poll token. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tool wallet_activity or state when to prefer this tool over it, so it misses full when-not-to-use coverage.

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