Behavioural sybil clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the EVM cost multiplier (5 API units vs 1), the All-Chains plan key requirement for EVM chains, and the guarantee that unsupported values are rejected before any request is spent. This is exactly the cost/auth/validation context the rubric credits.

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?

Approximately 100 words covering definition, differentiation, usage, exclusions, and cost—appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the core concept. Minor redundancy: get_wallet_links differentiation appears twice ('That behavioral inference is what separates it...' and 'Not for proven transfer or funding links (get_wallet_links)').

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 a rich output schema, detailed param schema, and safety annotations in place, the description completes the picture: what the tool infers, when to prefer it, what to corroborate with, what it is not for, and the cost/plan caveats. No critical gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with both address and chain fully documented (formats, examples, defaults, rejection cases), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value—'Arguments: address and chain' and the cost implication of choosing an EVM chain—over what the schema already states.

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, vivid definition—clusters of wallets behaving as a single actor via buyssized and timed alike, even without transfer/funding trails—and explicitly separatees itself from get_wallet_links which only reports proven links. The verb+resource (identify behavioral sybil clusters around a token) is unambigous and distinguishes the tool from its siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('when supply looks distributed across many small wallets and the insider graph comes back clean'), a corroboration suggestion (get_fee_fingerprint on Solana), and explicit when-not-to-use exclusions naming the alternatives (get_wallet_links for proven links, get_launch_bundles for launch-window coordination). Nothing is left to inference.

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