pulse_persistent_winners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the main behavior (profitable month count over 90 days) and return fields, but omits details on pagination behavior, sorting order, or edge cases like no results. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then output fields, then use case. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the time window, return fields, and key parameter (minMonths). Without an output schema, it provides essential return information. However, it could mention pagination (limit/offset) and sorting to be fully complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of minMonths but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding consistently profitable wallets based on profitable months. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Find consistently profitable wallets') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-month consistency rather than single-month luck.

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 includes a use-case hint ('who is consistently good, not just lucky once?'), which guides the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which would improve clarity.

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