pulse_anti_survivors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool queries cumulative realized PnL data and returns specific fields. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, which would be beneficial for transparency. However, the description accurately describes the behavior without contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output; the second gives a usage hint. There is no extraneous text. The informal tone ('blew up', 'rekt') is acceptable and aids clarity. It is slightly less formal than ideal but still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It states: 'Returns wallet, trough depth, and current cumulative PnL.' This covers the main outputs. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but those are handled by input parameters (limit, offset). For a list query tool, the description is sufficiently complete given the parameter richness.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The schema descriptions are already clear (e.g., 'Trough must be at least this deep (negative)'). The tool's description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 purpose: finding wallets that have experienced a deep trough in cumulative realized PnL and are still underwater. It specifies the output fields (wallet, trough depth, current cumulative PnL). The verb 'find' and resource 'wallets' with the specific condition distinguish it from siblings like pulse_survivors, which likely finds the opposite.

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 provides a clear use case: 'who got rekt and stayed rekt?' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (like pulse_survivors). The context is sufficient for an AI to understand typical usage scenarios.

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