Proven insider links

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra behavioral context: this is the 'hard-evidence tool' with provable links, and calls cost 'one API unit on any chain.' That goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage context, sibling differentiators, exclusions, and arguments in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 two-parameter tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers why, when, and when not to use it, plus cost. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are fully documented in the input schema itself. The description only says 'Arguments: address and chain,' adding no semantic detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific deliverable — 'the graph of proven on-chain links between wallets around one token' — and explains the investigative intent behind it ('deployer's supply fanned out to look like organic demand'). It also names related siblings, making the tool's niche unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use it when the holder list looks distributed and you want to know whether it really is'), and names alternatives for different situations: get_lookalike_clusters for unproven behavioral similarity, get_funding_sources for chain entry, and get_dev_tracker for creator wallet activity. It also excludes market data.

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