pulse_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the context that the report is 'local' and from 'this wallet's ledger,' which clarifies scope, but provides no other behavioral details like output format.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The 'FREE' prefixed element is slightly extraneous but does not detract significantly from clarity or structure.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description and schema together provide adequate context. However, there is no mention of return value format or how this report relates to the sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'days' parameter with a default of 7. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool as a spend report scoped to this wallet's ledger, which is distinct from sibling tools like pulse_balance. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'generates') and does not directly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pulse_balance or pulse_discover. The phrase 'local spend report' implies a specific use case, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are given.

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