madeonsol_wallet_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the time window (90 days) and the exact flags returned, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: the first packs the core description of outputs, the second gives usage guidance. Both are front-loaded and contain no superfluous text. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, robust annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its role as a sizing step. The 'PRO+' tag is minor. It could mention return format or limits, but the purpose is well-served.

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 single parameter described as 'Solana wallet address (base58)'. The description does not add further semantics, examples, or formatting details, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 provides aggregate stats for a Solana wallet over the last 90 days, with specific cross-product flags (is_kol, is_alpha_tracked, is_deployer). It distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending its use before drilling into PnL, implying it is a higher-level overview tool.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool 'before drilling into PnL to size up an unknown wallet quickly.' This provides clear situational context and hints at the workflow, though it does not enumerate specific when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools beyond the implied one.

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