check_drift_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's paid nature ($0.01 USDC) and the two distinct behavioral paths based on '_payment' presence. It does not cover edge cases like invalid wallets, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second covers payment detail, third explains behavior without payment. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: return data (positions, collateral, PnL, liquidation risk), payment gate, and the two response modes. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand usage and outcomes.

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 100%. The tool description adds context beyond the schema: it explains the two modes for '_payment' (present vs absent) and reinforces that 'wallet' is a Base58 address. This adds meaningful usage nuance.

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 explicitly states the tool checks a Solana wallet's exposure to Drift Protocol, listing specific data points (open perp positions, collateral, unrealized PnL, liquidation risk distance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like solana_wallet_scan by focusing on Drift Protocol exposure.

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 clearly explains the payment mechanism: passing a signed x402 v2 authorization as '_payment' unlocks the full response, while omitting it returns the accept-list. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other Solana tools among siblings).

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