find_serial_insiders

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds valuable behavioral insights: it explains why ranking on insider count alone is misleading (bots dominate) and instructs the agent on how to interpret the data (comparing insider_in vs also_held to distinguish real serial insiders from bots). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact (about 60 words) and front-loads the core purpose and pricing. The interpretive guidance on reading the output is concise, but the phrase 'close is a real serial insider, far apart is a bot' could be clearer without losing brevity. Suitable for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to interpret the output (insider_in vs also_held), and the context of bot filtering. The use of examples within the schema and the absence of required parameters makes it easy to call. It does not mention the price per call in detail (only per 25), but that is not critical. Overall, an agent can effectively use this tool with the given description.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add extra meaning to 'limit' or 'min_tokens' beyond what's in the schemaoo does not need to explain them further. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to either.

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 states a specific purpose: 'find wallets that keep turning up as insiders across the whole index.' It distinguishes itself by focusing on cross-token insider detection, which is not evident from siblings. However, the verb 'find' is generic, and the description could more clearly state that it ranks wallets across multiple tokens.

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 on when to use this tool (to identify serial insiders across the index) and implicitly contrasts with wallet-specific tools like 'check_wallet' or 'wallet_network'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context makes the usage clear.

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