analyze_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions natural language summaries (an output trait) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool making analysis calls.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured, though it sacrifices details for brevity. The trade-off is acceptable given the minimal tool complexity.

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 existence of get_wallet_summary as a sibling, the description is incomplete for contextual selection. It does not clarify what 'insights' entail, what the output structure looks like, or how this differs from simply getting a wallet summary. The description is too sparse for an agent to make a fully informed decision.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (chain, timeframe, walletAddress), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as analyzing wallet activity and providing natural language insights, which distinguishes it from simple data retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_wallet_summary, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use for high-level insights' or how it compares to get_wallet_summary, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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