hyre-wallet-intel

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a cost of $0.012 and the specific data categories returned, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or any prerequisites. The cost disclosure is useful, but it doesn't fully characterize the operation's side effects or limitations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key pricing detail without excess. Every part is informative.

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 provides the report's content (trading patterns, success rate, archetype) and the 30-day scope, which is useful given no output schema. It also mentions cost, which is part of the invocation context. However, it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid addresses or how to interpret the archetype.

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 schema already fully documents the address parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra information about the parameter format or usage, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 provides 'Full 30-day wallet intelligence' and lists specific outputs (trading patterns, success rate, archetype). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyre-wallet-pnl, which likely focuses solely on P&L.

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 implies use for comprehensive wallet analysis over a 30-day window, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no statement like 'use this instead of hyre-wallet-pnl for deeper insights'.

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