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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is data provenance — that this is public market data about someone else's equity curve, never the user's — which meaningfully prevents misuse. It adds nothing about freshness, caching, or what happens if the wallet isn't tracked.

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 core purpose leads the description and the disambiguation follows, which is the right order. The 'not the user's wallet' idea is restated twice, which is slightly redundant, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the output-side burden is low. The description is nevertheless thin on the input side: with two of three parameters undocumented anywhere, an agent knows what the tool answers but not how to drive it.

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 only 33%: wallet_address is documented but period (enum 1d/7d/30d/1y) and network (const solana) carry only titles. The description never mentions either parameter, so an agent gets no guidance on how the period selection changes the chart window or that network is fixed.

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+resource: cumulative realized PnL over time for a tracked whale, with an evocative framing (steady climb vs one lucky trade) that tells the agent what question the tool answers. It does not differentiate from close siblings like get_whale_wallet_track_record, get_whale_wallet_wins, or get_whale_wallet_positions, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives a strong negative rule: not the user's own data, and tools prefixed get_my_ return the user's data — that is genuine routing guidance. However, it offers no positive 'use this when...' relative to the other whale wallet siblings, so within the whale_* family the agent still has to guess.

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