get_wallet_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, whether the wallet must be indexed, rate limits, or what 'recent periods' actually spans, leaving significant gaps for a data-returning tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly due to under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine the period format, chain semantics, or expected return shape from this text alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely gestures at the 'period' parameter and says nothing about 'walletAddress' (required) or 'chain'. The chain parameter's accepted format (string or number) is entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet performance / PnL summary'), so the agent knows the general output type. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like generate_pnl, get_portfolio, or get_hl_user_stats, which could plausibly return overlapping data.

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 on when to use this versus generate_pnl or get_portfolio, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the wallet must be tracked/authenticated). The phrase 'across recent periods' hints at scope but gives no conditions for selection.

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