trace_funds

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by capping traversal at 2 hops and explaining that it surfaces links to mixers, sanctioned wallets, and exploiters. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the added risk-flagging behavior goes beyond the minimal safety signal.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, then efficiently packs in the hop limit and risky-address flagging behavior. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause adds meaningful information.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, an output schema, and supporting annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior well. It does not explain output structure, but that is unnecessary because an output schema exists. An explicit usage distinction from sibling tools would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so address, hops, chain, direction, and max_per_hop are already documented. The description reinforces the concept of following money and hop limits but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, placing it at 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 uses an active verb ('Follow') with a specific resource ('money in and out of an address') and defines the tool's scope ('1 or 2 hops'). It also clearly names the distinctive outcome ('flag links to known risky addresses'), which sets it apart from generic wallet/profile or token-risk siblings.

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 tracing behavior implies when to use it, such as investigating fund movement or the source/destination of funds. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over score_risk, check_token_risk, or get_wallet_profile, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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