get_wallet_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as data source caveats, potential incompleteness, or external label reliability; openWorldHint covers some of this implicitly, but the description itself contributes nothing beyond the output field list.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists concrete output facets. The list is slightly long but every item adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and annotations cover safety and open-world assumptions. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but for a read-only descriptive tool the definition is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but not additive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles 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 verb 'Describe' and the resource 'a wallet', then enumerates the exact output categories (age, balance, transaction count, top counterparties, tokens, activity patterns, bad-actor labels). This clearly distinguishes it from the risk-scoring siblings (score_risk, check_token_risk) which evaluate rather than describe.

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 the tool is for retrieving a descriptive wallet profile, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like score_risk or trace_funds. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling handles related use cases.

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