check_wallet

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline burden is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a read-only aggregate across all indexed tokens, works universally for any address, and includes a cost signal ('$0.006'). It does not disclose rate limits or latency, but the readOnly annotation covers the critical safety profile.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: it states cost, purpose, key outputs, universality, and sibling-tool distinctions. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main operational facts: what the tool aggregates, which metrics are returned, that any address works, and how it differs from nearby siblings. The only minor gap is not stating explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules, but the context signals and sibling definitions make it sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single address parameter ('Solana wallet, base58'), so the schema already carries the full weight. The description's 'Works for any address' adds only a minor clarification that there is no address restriction, which does not meaningfully extend the schema.

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 identifies the resource (a single wallet) and the scope ('across every token we indexed'), then enumerates the specific data points returned: launches, how many ran, roles, and realised record. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining kol_record and wallet_network, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 phrase 'Works for any address' sets a clear inclusiveness condition, and the distinctions between kol_record and wallet_network tell an agent when this tool is the right choice versus when a per-trade history or network-level view would be more appropriate. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' formulation, but the context is strong.

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