madeonsol_kol_token_entry_order

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

Annotations already indicate safety and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing ranking order (by entry timestamp) and the PRO+ addition of percentile_pnl_7d, which are beyond annotation coverage.

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, front-loading the core purpose and adding an optional feature. No extraneous content, very efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description clarifies the return structure (ranked entries with entry timestamp, and optionally PnL). It is sufficiently complete for a list-based tool, though it omits details like pagination or error handling.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (mint and limit descriptions).

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 it returns ranked KOL first-buyers for a specific token, ordered by entry timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kol_leaderboard or kol_feed by focusing on first-buyer ranking and entry order.

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 retrieving KOL entry order data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context about PRO+ feature availability.

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