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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful return behavior: it returns full score objects, ranks by wash-discounted effective_score, returns 'tie' on equality, and returns null if a side is unavailable. This gives the agent important edge-case knowledge without needing to invoke the tool.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical use case and return semantics are concise yet informative, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, read-only comparison tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, return value shape, ranking logic, tie behavior, and unavailable-side behavior. Combined with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for wallet_a and wallet_b, including accepted formats (Solana base58 or Base 0x). The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, 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 identifies a specific operation—comparing two wallets—and clearly states the resource ('two wallets') and the output ('both full score objects' and rank). It also implies the distinguishing use case ('choosing between two candidate providers'), which differentiates it from single-wallet or batch siblings like score_wallet_for_intel and score_wallets_batch.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need side-by-side intelligence for exactly two wallets, such as comparing candidate providers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'two wallets' framing and the example make the intended usage unambiguous.

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