madeonsol_wallet_pnl

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: dynamic TTL caching, quota exemption for cache hits, silent discard of overflow sells beyond 90-day window, and hydration of open positions with live prices. This goes beyond annotations but could still clarify error handling for invalid wallet addresses.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packs metrics, caching, quota, and data limitations into a single paragraph. However, the trailing 'PRO+' is extraneous for an agent and slightly reduces conciseness. Minor improvement could be better structuring with bullet points.

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 comprehensively lists output components (realized/unrealized SOL, profit factor, etc.) and explains data constraints and caching. It covers the tool's complexity well but lacks explicit format details (e.g., JSON structure). Overall complete for agent understanding.

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 a clear description for 'address'. The tool description does not add new semantic detail for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description focuses on output context, not parameter semantics.

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 computes 'Full FIFO cost-basis PnL for any wallet' and enumerates specific metrics (realized/unrealized SOL, profit factor, max drawdown, etc.). It uniquely identifies the resource and operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_positions or wallet_stats.

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?

Usage context is implied through edge cases (90-day data window, overflow discard) and cache behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like madeonsol_wallet_positions or madeonsol_wallet_stats. A clear 'use this for PnL, use that for positions' statement is missing.

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