get_wallet_pnl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a useful meta-behavior: the cost of $0.01 per request. However, it omits details about what the analysis includes (e.g., realized/unrealized PnL, time period, fees), potential side effects, or required permissions. The cost information adds some transparency, but the full burden is not fully met.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the cost note is an essential piece of information. There is zero waste or redundant phrasing.

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 description lacks completeness given the absence of an output schema and the analytical nature of the tool. It does not describe what the P&L response contains, how it is computed, or any limitations (e.g., supported chains, token coverage). The agent cannot infer the return format from the description alone, which is a significant gap for a non-trivial analysis 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (chain, address, filters). The context of 'token trades' is implicit in the tool name and description, but it does not elaborate on how each parameter influences the PnL calculation.

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 tool's specific function: 'Get profit and loss analysis for a wallet's token trades.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('wallet's token trades'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_wallet_balances and get_wallet_transactions. The additional pricing note is also clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with similar wallet-related tools. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for X use instead...' context.

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