madeonsol_kol_compare_wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the context of side-by-side comparison and tier-dependent overlap tokens, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., response size, auth requirements, or rate limits). Given annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core function and metrics; the second adds the tier-specific feature. Information is front-loaded and easily scannable. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the purpose, metric types, and tier-based feature. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., is it a table, JSON, or plain text?) and does not mention any prerequisites for using the PRO+ overlap feature. Given the annotations already provide safety context, the description is nearly complete but could be slightly richer.

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 only parameter, wallets, is described in the schema with min/max items and a brief description. The tool description adds clarity by mapping wallet counts to tiers (BASIC=2, PRO=4, ULTRA=5) and mentioning the PRO+ add-on feature. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of parameter details elsewhere.

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 the tool does side-by-side comparison of 2-5 KOL wallets, listing metrics like strategy, winrates, ROI, percentile. The name 'compare_wallets' reinforces this purpose. Among many KOL sibling tools (e.g., kol_consensus, kol_leaderboard), it uniquely focuses on comparison, though it could better differentiate itself.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like madeonsol_kol_consensus or madeonsol_kol_leaderboard. It mentions tier-specific features (BASIC, PRO, ULTRA) but does not direct the agent toward or away from this tool. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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