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

The description discloses key behaviors: it analyzes 'other tracked wallets that traded the same tokens as this one over the last 30 days' and ranks by overlap. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, which already indicate safe reading and dynamic results. The description enhances agent understanding of the tool's logic and scope.

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: two sentences of purpose plus a parameter list. Every part is relevant, and the structure front-loads the key functionality. The parameter list is a minor redundancy with the schema but is brief and helpful for an agent scanning the description.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the input parameters, the criteria (token overlap over 30 days), ranking, and a practical use case. This covers essential context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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%, with each parameter already having detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds a brief parameter list ('blockchain: solana, bnb, base, eth or rh', etc.), but this does not provide new information beyond the schema. The description merely summarizes the schema content without adding deeper semantic context, so baseline 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 it returns 'other tracked wallets that traded the same tokens as this one over the last 30 days, ranked by overlap.' While it lacks a strong verb like 'get' or 'list,' the purpose is specific and well-defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_wallets' or 'detect_bundles' by focusing on token overlap, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for finding groups that move together, which can indicate coordination,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_wallets, get_wallet_history), nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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