madeonsol_kol_pnl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description is not needed for safety traits. The description adds tier behavior (BASIC/PRO/ULTRA) and lists metrics, but does not disclose additional behavioral context like rate limits or data freshness. It is adequate but not extensive.

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?

Description is one sentence with a clear list of metrics and tier breakdown. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the tier notation (— and : ) slightly clutters readability, and the list could be more structured.

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 specific metrics but does not explain the output format (e.g., object structure, array), leaving ambiguity for the agent. The tier info helps but completeness is moderate.

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% with descriptions for both 'wallet' and 'period' parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, thus 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 provides 'Deep per-wallet PnL breakdown' with specific metrics (realized PnL, win rate, profit factor, max drawdown, daily equity curve, closed/open positions). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'KOL wallet' and tier system (BASIC, PRO, ULTRA), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 detailed PnL analysis of a KOL wallet but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like madeonsol_wallet_pnl or other sibling tools. The tier system is mentioned but lacks comparative context for when to choose each tier.

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