insumer_batch_wallet_trust

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

With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: batch speed advantage, independent ECDSA signatures, partial success (failed wallets get error entries), credit costs (3/6 credits per successful wallet), and the 'merkle' proof option. It could add more on rate limits or idempotency but is sufficiently transparent for a non-destructive batch operation.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then efficiency, then profile details, then partial success and costs. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (batch, multi-wallet, proof option, credits, partial success), the description covers these aspects well. It lacks explicit return format details, but since output schema is absent, the description could be considered complete enough. The partial success and credit details add sufficient context for an agent to decide.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value beyond schema: shared block fetches, ECDSA-signed profiles with TRST-XXXXX IDs, partial success handling, and credit cost details. The proof parameter is well explained in both schema and description. Overall enriches parameter understanding.

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 generates wallet trust fact profiles for up to 10 wallets in a single request. It uses specific verbs and resource (generate, wallet trust fact profiles) and distinguishes from siblings like insumer_wallet_trust by emphasizing batch processing and speed improvement.

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?

Description explains when to use the tool: for batch profiling with shared block fetches (5-8x faster) and partial success. It implicitly discourages sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like the singular version, but does mention the proof option as an alternative use case.

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