Funding provenance

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description reveals important behavior: it walks funding chains back, tiers sources by KYC status, answers provenance only, and charges 5 API units on EVM chains due to paid indexers. This is valuable operational context not present in annotations or schema.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, use case, exclusions with sibling names, and cost implications. It is well front-loaded and avoids filler.

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 tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: what problem it solves, what it intentionally does not do, when to use alternatives, and cost behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description does not need to re-explain address and chain formats. It does add the cost implication tied to EVM chains, which is useful, but the parameter meaning itself is fully carried by the input 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: 'Multi-hop tracing of where the money behind this token's key wallets actually came from.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_wallet_links, get_lookalike_clusters, get_dev_tracker, get_launch_bundles, and get_launch_snipers as what this tool is not.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: testing whether several 'unrelated' holders share one funding source. It also names exclusions and alternatives explicitly, so an agent knows when not to select this tool and which sibling to pick instead.

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