Anti-Survivors (Unrecovered Blow-Ups)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the underlying filter logic: a deep trough in cumulative realized PnL and current PnL still underwater. It also states what the tool returns, which is valuable since no output schema is present.

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 two efficient sentences with a memorable use-case quote. It front-loads the core behavior and expected outputs without any filler or repetition of schema content.

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 filter tool with 100% parameter schema coverage and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior, selection criteria, return fields, and motivating question. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly names what will be returned, so an agent can call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description doesn't need to carry parameter documentation. It does conceptually align 'trough depth' with maxTrough and 'still underwater' with stillUnderwater, but it adds no technical parameter details beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find wallets that blew up and never recovered,' and defines the exact criteria (deep cumulative realized PnL trough plus still underwater). It also names the key return fields (wallet, trough depth, current cumulative PnL), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like pulse_survivors.

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 a clear use case: 'Use for "who got rekt and stayed rekt?"' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives like pulse_survivors, but the anti-survivor framing and 'never recovered' condition make the intended context reasonably clear.

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