Unfollow a trader

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful extra safety context beyond those annotations by clarifying that the operation 'moves no funds,' reducing ambiguity about whether unfollowing has financial side effects.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety clarification follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential action and side-effect profile. A mention of authentication or wallet-connection prerequisites would make it fully complete, but the current definition is adequate.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must add meaning. 'By wallet address' clarifies that the wallet parameter is an address rather than a username or identifier, which is useful beyond the bare string 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Stop following a trader by wallet address.' The action is immediately distinguishable from sibling follow_trader, which performs the inverse. 'Moves no funds' further sharpens what the tool is not for.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to stop following a trader you currently follow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as requiring an existing follow, and no mention of follow_trader as the alternative action.

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