get_copy_trade_wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral facts: no auth required, 2-minute cache, and a hard cap of 300 results. It doesn't say whether refresh is possible or what the result ordering/liveness guarantees are past the cache window.

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, all load-bearing, with the identity of the tool front-loaded ahead of the operational caveats (no auth, cache). Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 this covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it: known size cap, cache staleness, and ranking criterion. A hint about what each wallet entry contains would close the last gap, but with no output schema that is the only omission.

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 baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description's note that ranking is by totalPnl is the only knob-like semantic and is already implied.

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), resource (top 300 wallets), ranking criterion (totalPnl), and venue scope (Solana spot copy trade leaderboard). That scope implicitly separates it from get_hl_top_traders and get_top_traders, but it doesn't name those siblings 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?

The domain wording ('Solana spot copy trade leaderboard') implies when it's relevant, and 'no auth' removes a prerequisite question. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_top_traders or get_copy_trade_custom_wallets.

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