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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the cost/round-trip advantage over repeated get_wallet_tracker calls, which is the main reason an agent would pick this tool. It does not mention rate limits or how results are trimmed for large requests, so not a 5.

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 the payoff (batch statistics for up to 100 wallets) followed by the cheaper-than alternative and then the parameters. It is appropriately short, though the trailing parameter legend duplicates information already in the schema, which is modest redundancy rather than waste.

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 an output schema present, an agent does not need return-value documentation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, trigger conditions, the strongest alternative, and every parameter name, leaving only cost limits and large-window trimming behavior undocumented in the prose.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter lines (blockchain values, address cap, wallet_type options, period options) largely restate what the schema already documents in more detail, including the enum-like value sets, and add no new syntax or format guidance.

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 states a specific operation and scope: statistics for up to 100 wallets in a single request, which is exactly the batch counterpart to the single-wallet sibling. It contrasts itself against get_wallet_tracker, but never explicitly frames the operation as a *comparison* of wallets, so the verb is slightly softer than the tool name implies.

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?

"Use when the user names several wallets, or to follow up on a leaderboard" gives concrete triggering conditions and names the cheaper-alternative relationship to get_wallet_tracker. No explicit when-not or edge-case exclusions (e.g., what to do for a single wallet) are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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