madeonsol_kol_pnl

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about tier-dependent output (BASIC, PRO, ULTRA) and specific metrics (realized PnL, win rate, etc.), which annotates the behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value (first states purpose and metrics, second explains tier differences). No fluff.

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 lists key metrics but does not specify return format or error conditions. However, annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and parameters are simple. It is complete enough for a typical read tool, though a note on response shape would improve it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'wallet' and 'period' described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters; it simply restates the purpose. A score of 3 is baseline given high schema coverage.

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 states 'Deep per-wallet PnL breakdown' with specific metrics listed, and it distinguishes from sibling tools—none of which focus on PnL breakdown. The verb 'break down' plus resource 'PnL' is precise.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for wallet PnL analysis but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings like madeonsol_kol_leaderboard or madeonsol_kol_compare_wallets.

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