wallet_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns reputation and trading data, but says nothing about output format, error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. This is minimal for a read-only lookup.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the resource and scope, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot determine what 'reputation' or 'trading profile' actually contain, nor what the response structure looks like. The high-level summary is not enough to fully guide a correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'wallet' parameter. It adds that the parameter refers to a wallet on X1, which is useful context, but it does not specify the expected address format or any variations. This partially fills the schema gap.

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 phrase 'Full reputation + trading profile for a wallet on X1' clearly identifies the resource (wallet profile), the network (X1), and the type of data returned (reputation and trading profile). Although no explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' is used, the intent is obvious and distinct from related siblings such as holdings or recent_trades.

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. Related sibling tools like holdings, recent_trades, and top_traders cover neighboring data, but the description does not mention them, state exclusions, or give context about choosing wallet_profile over others. Only the weak implication 'for a wallet' exists.

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