check_earnings

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return values (pending SOL/USD earnings, share percentage, holder shares) and the edge case of returning zeros when the wallet has no position. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only check this is sufficient context.

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 composed of three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third clarifies the zero-value behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return values, and an important edge case. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., valid address formats), but those are already in the schema, making the description sufficiently complete for a simple check operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (mint and wallet) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a wallet's pending reflection earnings for a specific DumbMoney token'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like top_earners (which lists top earners) and list_tokens (which lists tokens). It leaves no ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when needing to check a wallet's pending earnings for a specific token. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance seen in the highest-scoring examples.

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