Trader Briefing

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint all set. The description adds 'fast' and the rough scope of returned data, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral caveats such as data freshness, defaults beyond the schema, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, approximate return content, and decision context well. It stops short of defining what exactly counts as 'top wins and losses' or what the lifecycle summary includes, but this is adequate for a demo/triage 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'address' and 'useToonFormat' are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only the word 'wallet', which maps to the address parameter, but does not contribute meaningful parameter semantics 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 ('Get a fast wallet briefing') and clearly states the returned content: 'lifecycle summary plus recent top wins and losses.' It also distinguishes its niche from deeper analysis by framing it as a demo/triage tool.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use when the user wants a quick read before deciding whether to run deeper lifecycle, drawdown, or token-level analysis. It does not name exact sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'quick read vs deeper analysis' contrast makes the intended usage clear.

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