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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only that both realized and unrealized PnL are returned alongside trade history, which is useful scope information but discloses nothing about rate limits, address validity, empty-history behavior, or how unrealized PnL is computed.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core resource (PnL) is front-loaded ahead of the scoping qualifiers. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 carries more of the return-value burden, and it only gestures at the payload ('realized/unrealized P&L and trade history') without indicating structure, per-trade granularity, or denomination/currency. Annotations do cover the mutation profile, and the parameter schema is complete, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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%: the schema already documents 'wallet' as a Base address (0x…) and 'days' as a 1-365 lookback with default 30. The description's mention of 'Base wallet address' and 'lookback window' only restates the schema, adding no format, validation, or edge-case detail.

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 a specific verb+resource pair: realized/unrealized PnL plus trade history, scoped to a Base wallet address and a lookback window. That is enough for an agent to identify it apart from the sibling tools (critical_minerals, equity_signal, labor_pulse, smart_money, token_scan), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the analytics-adjacent siblings like smart_money or token_scan.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The lookback-window phrasing implies a time-scoped query, but an agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over smart_money or token_scan when answering a wallet question.

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