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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: rows are ranked by profitability and bot wallets are filtered out, plus a coverage caveat that not every chain supports the board. It does not mention pagination or the meaning of the ranking metric, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core scope ('wallets ranked by profit on one chain') front-loaded and the caveat second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the return (ranked wallets) and the data-quality filtering, which is roughly what an agent needs. It lacks any hint about the ranking field or result size beyond the limit parameter, a minor gap given the fully documented schema and annotations.

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%: each parameter already documents its defaults, ranges and enum values, including the per-chain day-window rules. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 states the specific resource (wallets), the ranking criterion (profit), the scope (one chain), and a data-quality guarantee (bots removed). This is a distinct verb+resource statement that separates it from nearby siblings like chord_wallet and chord_holders.

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 line 'Not every chain has this board' gives a useful availability caveat and implicitly routes the agent to chord_chains for support, but it never states when to prefer this board over alternatives such as chord_holders or chord_wallet, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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