get_copy_trade_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no auth is needed and that results are cached for 2 minutes (a staleness constraint), but says nothing about ordering guarantees, return shape, or pagination for the 300-wallet set.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core scope statement front-loaded and operational facts (auth, caching) trailing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned (wallets ranked by totalPnl) plus auth and cache behavior. Minor gap: no indication of the per-wallet fields or whether the list can be truncated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by framing the response as fixed at top 300.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (wallets) with precise scope: top 300, ranked by totalPnl, on the Solana spot copy trade leaderboard. This separates it from generic siblings like get_top_traders, get_wallet_performance and the HL variants, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With sibling tools such as get_top_traders, get_copy_trade_list and get_copy_trade_custom_wallets in the same namespace, the agent must infer selection from the scope phrase alone.

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