trace_funding_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: this is a Pro-gated capability (relevant given siblings activate_pro_license and get_pro_upgrade_info) and Base coverage depends on an indexer. It says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, result format, or limits.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the Pro/Solana scope leads. The second sentence is cryptic enough that its brevity comes at some cost to comprehension, but nothing is wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no picture of what the returned clusters look like, how the heuristics behave, or the constraints on the address array.

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 explain both parameters and does not. 'Solana shared-funder' loosely maps to the chain parameter and 'wallet owners' loosely to holderAddresses, but there is no mention of the 20-address maximum, required vs optional status, or address format.

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 identifies the resource (shared-funder clusters for wallet owners) and constrains it to Solana, so an agent can roughly tell what it analyzes. But it states no verb ('trace' comes only from the name) and never says what a cluster is or what the caller receives, leaving the purpose vague rather than specific.

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?

'Base reports unsupported without an indexer' hints at a when-not condition for the non-default chain value, but the wording is ambiguous about whether Base ever works. No sibling tool (scan_token_safety, batch_audit_watchlist, etc.) is named as an alternative, so routing is left to inference.

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