madeonsol_wallet_tracker_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns specific stats, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. With strong annotation coverage, 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose ('Per-wallet stats'), and no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return data. Could mention watchlist context more explicitly, but overall complete for a simple non-destructive tool.

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% and parameter descriptions already explain 'period' (time window) and 'wallet' (filter). The description does not add new meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is correct.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns per-wallet stats (swap counts, SOL bought/sold, last activity) for wallets on watchlist. It uses specific verb (implied 'get') and resource (watchlist wallet stats), distinguishing it from other wallet tools like wallet_pnl or wallet_positions.

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 usage for watchlist wallets, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like wallet_stats or wallet_tracker_trades. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though context signals help.

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