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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive; the description adds the operationally critical traits: cursor-based pagination with an explicit warning not to send a page number, and identity resolution from the API key. These are exactly the behaviors that cause failed calls when undisclosed, and they are stated up front.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then pagination warning, then sibling routing, then scope — a sensible priority order. Slightly longer than necessary; the '⚠️' framing and repeated pagination point cost a little density, but every sentence carries distinct 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?

With annotations, a full output schema, and high schema coverage, the description covers the remaining gaps: ordering, pagination protocol, identity scope, and sibling routing. Only minor omissions remain, such as no hint about expected page sizes or whether the feed mixes categories by default.

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 80% and the schema already documents `cursor`, `limit`, and the `category`/`token_address` dependency (including the buys/sells/closed_trades rejection rule). The description reinforces cursor semantics but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema; the most valuable conditional logic lives in the schema, 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 concrete verb and resource ('wallet activity feed') and enumerates the contents (trades, transfers, deposits, withdrawals) plus ordering ('newest first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_my_transactions` and scopes to the current user, so an agent can tell the two history tools apart without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit decision rule: prefer activity for 'what have I been doing', use transactions when a specific type such as deposits is needed, with the structural reason (merged human-readable timeline vs. raw filterable list). It also states a hard exclusion — there is no way to query someone else's wallet with this tool.

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