Analyze wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the heuristic risk flags and notes that higher transferSample is slower but more accurate, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't clarify what 'heuristic risk flags' entail or how they are computed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key capabilities and a directive. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of a multi-faceted wallet analysis tool, the description covers the main outputs and usage context. It lacks details on output format (no output schema) and the meaning of certain parameters, but remains largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50%; address and transferSample are documented in the schema, but holdings and counterparties lack descriptions. The description does not add meaning for these parameters, leaving gaps for the undocumented ones.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'One-call wallet profile' that includes portfolio value, holdings, first/last activity, flow shape, top counterparties, funders, and risk flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_pnl or find_counterparties by offering a composite overview.

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?

It explicitly states 'Start every wallet investigation here,' giving clear guidance on when to use this tool first. This implicitly positions it as a hub before more specialized tools like trace_funds or wallet_pnl.

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