madeonsol_kol_pairs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, which covers safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns an 'affinity matrix' based on co-trading, but it does not detail how affinity is calculated, pagination behavior, or output structure. With annotations present, the description provides moderate added value.

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 conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key concept 'KOL affinity matrix.' However, it could be slightly more structured to include output hints or usage notes, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure; it mentions 'affinity matrix' but doesn't specify fields like pair identifiers, score, or token counts. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no required ones) and rich annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete regarding output.

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?

All three parameters (limit, period, min_shared) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description mentions 'time window' which aligns with the period parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'KOL affinity matrix — discover which KOLs frequently co-trade the same tokens within a time window.' It uses a specific verb (discover) and resource (KOL pairs based on co-trading), distinguishing it from sibling tools like madeonsol_kol_leaderboard or madeonsol_kol_feed.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus other KOL-related siblings (e.g., madeonsol_kol_consensus, madeonsol_kol_coordination). There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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