get_copy_trade_custom_wallets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses useful traits: no authentication is required, the result is limited to the top 300 wallets, and data is cached for 2 minutes. It does not describe return fields or error behavior, but the auth and caching details are the most important operational facts for this read endpoint.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It states the core result first, then appends only the two operational facts an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description states the scope, size cap, auth requirement, and cache duration. However, it leaves 'custom' unexplained and provides no alternative routing or detail about the returned wallet fields, so it is only minimally complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter documentation to compensate for. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4; there is nothing additional the description could or should document.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get top 300 wallets ranked by net received.' That is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function. However, it does not explain what 'custom' means in the tool name or distinguish it from siblings like get_copy_trade_wallets and get_copy_trade_gems.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. 'No auth' and 'Cached 2 min' are operational facts, not usage instructions, so the agent gets no help selecting this tool over related copy-trade wallet endpoints.

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