Discover Traders

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: traders are 'registry candidates probed for live equity,' and output rows are specified as address, equity (USD, >= min_equity), registry_hits, and last_seen. It does not contradict the annotations and provides more context than the schema alone.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the purpose, then gives workflow direction, output shape, and a concrete example in four sentences with zero redundancy. Every sentence contributes to effective tool use.

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 simple two-parameter read-only screener, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, what each output row contains, and a worked example. The output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not needed, and annotations cover safety behavior. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does: min_equity is defined as the equity threshold ('USD, >= min_equity') and the example discover_traders(limit=5, min_equity=100.0) clarifies how both parameters are passed. However, limit is only illustrated, not explicitly described as a result count, so the compensation is good but not perfect.

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 opens with 'Screener: funded, recently active traders discovered from the chain,' which names a specific resource (traders), a clear scope (on-chain discovery), and an implicit filter (funded, recently active). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling trader_profile by explicitly saying 'Start here, then analyze each with trader_profile,' making the tool's role in a workflow unmistakable.

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 gives direct workflow guidance: 'Start here, then analyze each with trader_profile.' This tells an agent when this tool fits relative to a key sibling, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to avoid list_traders or other related tools. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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