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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds genuinely new context in the paywall note (top 3 free, remainder paid) and the 'Counts, not calls' clarification, but it leaves ambiguous whether the paid remainder is truncated, hidden, or returned with an error.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the core measure set is front-loaded before the access caveat. The telegraphic fragments ('Counts, not calls', 'wallets each side') border on cryptic, but nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the fields an agent will receive. However, it does not say how the free/paid split affects results (partial rows, gated sections, or error), and gives no sense of market coverage or result size — significant gaps for a paywalled index 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline 4 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?

The description names the resource (a 'Smart Money Index') and enumerates its measures: per market, proven-wallet long and short dollars, net, day-over-day change, and wallet counts per side. That is specific enough to distinguish it from a raw entries list, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling pm_smart_money_entries.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative among the six siblings. The only usage-relevant note is 'Top 3 free; the rest paid', which describes an access tier rather than when to select this tool over another.

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