auto_trace_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add 'May take up to 5 minutes' and 'Cost: 200 credits,' which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The output schema covers return format, but prerequisites or read-only status are not disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear action sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line provides value: examples, formats, and cost/latency. It is appropriately sized given the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters with no schema-level descriptions, and no annotations. The description covers all parameters with syntax and value domains, includes a precise example, and warns about the 5-minute execution time. Since an output schema exists, return values are already documented, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining all five parameters: proto lists possible values (btc, eth, trx, xrp), direct specifies 'in, out', address includes an example, and time_from/time_to are described as Unix timestamps with examples. This added meaning far exceeds the bare schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Automatically trace the flow of transactions from a wallet address across multiple hops.' This uses a specific verb (trace) and resource (transaction flow from a wallet) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_graph by emphasizing automation and multi-hop scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_transaction_graph or get_address_stats. It only states what it does and adds a latency warning, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations exist.

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