pulse_entity_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool resolves wallets to entities, aggregates sub-accounts and linked wallets, includes combined open positions, provides a 'verified vs chain' stamp, and notes that vaults appear as named sub-accounts. It also states the requirement for Pro tier. No contradictions exist. The description is rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value, from the resolution purpose to the note about vaults and the Pro tier requirement. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be tightened slightly without losing clarity. Still, it is well-structured and information-dense.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (resolving wallets to entities with sub-accounts, combined positions, etc.) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool returns. It lists the key components and the two main questions answered. However, it lacks details on the exact output format (beyond toon/JSON), error handling, or what happens for unknown wallets. It is mostly complete but not exhaustive.

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 does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema already provides. The address parameter is well-described in the schema, and the useToonFormat parameter is also covered. The tool description focuses on the output and purpose, not on parameter details.

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: 'Resolve ANY wallet to its owner entity' and lists exactly what it provides (master account, sub-accounts, open positions, verification stamp). It also explicitly answers two questions ('who owns this wallet?' and 'what is this trader's real total book?'), making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pulse_trader_profile, which focus on a single trader's stats rather than entity resolution.

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 explains when to use the tool: it answers 'who owns this wallet?' and what the trader's total book across all accounts is. It also provides context that per-wallet views undercount multi-account traders, implying this tool is better for those cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing it to pulse_trader_profile or other tools that might also provide ownership info.

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