wallet_pnl

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 details the output fields (realized/unrealized gains, portfolio value, win rate, holdings, verdict), but does not mention that the tool is read-only, rate limits, or any prerequisites. Still, it adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to fully detail return values, but it lists them helpfully. However, it omits critical context: the wallet must be on Base, the data source, error conditions, and no guidance on parameters or usage boundaries.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'wallet' (likely an address) or 'days' (lookback period). The parameters are only defined by type in the schema, and the description adds no meaning, which is a critical gap.

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 an on-chain wallet PnL analyzer for Base, a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like wallet_risk by focusing on profit/loss analysis.

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 implies usage for PnL analysis but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternatives. With a similar sibling tool wallet_risk, more explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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