hyre-wallet-pnl

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It adds a cost per call ($0.005) and enumerates the returned data, but doesn't disclose potential error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects (though likely a read-only operation). The absence of annotations is partly compensated by the cost and contents mention.

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. It front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key outputs and cost efficiently.

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?

Given the simplicity (one fully-described param) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and cost, but omits response format and error conditions. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 describes the only parameter ('address' with a clear description). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it rests at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 returns Wallet PnL with specific components (realized, unrealized, portfolio value, holdings). It distinguishes itself from broader wallet tools like hyre-wallet-intel by naming the exact metrics. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'compute', which is a minor gap.

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 sibling tools like hyre-wallet-intel or hyre-ask. It doesn't mention any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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