pulse_trader_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes a read-only operation ('Returns'), which is consistent with the lack of destructive hints. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or that the data is historical/live, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the purpose and key outputs; the second provides a usage case. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

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 tool's purpose, input parameters, and output fields comprehensively. With no output schema, the listed fields (total PnL, trade count, etc.) give a complete picture. The two parameters are well-explained in the schema, leaving no gaps.

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% (both parameters documented). The description adds context: 'by wallet address' clarifies the address parameter, and 'compact toon format' explains useToonFormat. It also lists the returned fields, enriching the schema description.

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 it gets a full profile for any Hyperliquid trader by wallet address, listing specific metrics (PnL, trade count, win rate, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling trader-specific tools (e.g., pulse_trader_performance) by covering a comprehensive profile.

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 specifies 'due diligence on any wallet' as usage context. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context implicitly directs users to this tool for a broad overview, and the sibling list shows many trader tools from which it could be differentiated.

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