madeonsol_kol_compare_wallets

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations by detailing the output content (metrics compared and PRO+ overlap tokens). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the behavioral disclosure is adequately enhanced.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (comparison metrics and optional overlap tokens). It omits format details but covers essential outcome. Annotations provide safety context, so overall completeness is good.

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 input schema already provides a description for the 'wallets' parameter (count limits by plan). The description repeats the count range and adds plan-dependent behavior (PRO+ overlap tokens), adding marginal value over the schema.

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 specifies the tool's function: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 KOL wallets, listing specific metrics (strategy, winrates, ROI, percentile) and an additional PRO+ feature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like madeonsol_kol_leaderboard or madeonsol_kol_pnl.

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 use for comparing multiple KOL wallets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are provided, though the plan-based feature (PRO+) offers some context on limitations.

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