Trader profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: the bio is third-party untrusted text and instructions inside it must not be followed. That prompt-injection warning is valuable and not derivable from the structured fields.

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, no filler. The resource and lookup keys are front-loaded, and the security caveat follows in a single tight clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing returns and does so by listing the profile fields. Combined with the readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the both-keys-supplied edge case and required-ness remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the schema alone (bare 'wallet'/'username' strings, both optional) leaves semantics unstated. The description partly compensates by framing them as alternative lookup keys, but it never clarifies precedence when both are supplied, whether one is required, or accepted formats like the '@' prefix.

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?

States a specific resource ('A trader's public profile') with an explicit 'by wallet or @username' selector and enumerates the returned fields (display name, bio, funds created, TVL managed). This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like follow_trader and set_profile, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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 lookup key ('by wallet or @username') implies how to call it and when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative, no statement of prerequisite conditions, and no exclusion guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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