funder_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are labelled with exchange names when known, ranking is based on seeded fresh wallets, and null-label high-count rows are called out as significant. It does not add pagination details, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the core ranking and labeling function, the second clarifies the level of aggregation, and the third gives an actionable heuristic. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what is ranked, how labels work, and even suggests what to look for. Minor gaps remain around domain terms like 'fresh wallets' and 'seeded', but they do not block correct invocation.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so limit and min_wallets are already fully documented with types, defaults, and ranges. The description provides no additional parameter-specific semantics, though 'seeded' loosely maps to min_wallets. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 resource (funders) and a clear ranking action ('ranked by how many fresh wallets they seeded across the whole index'), and explicitly distinguishes this cross-index view from a single-token view ('inside one token is a line item; across the index it is a desk'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separated from token-scoped siblings.

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 implies the tool is for cross-index funder analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling list is provided, but the description itself does not name a specific alternative or routing condition.

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