kol_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds notable behavior: it costs $0.02 for tracked addresses, returns null for untracked ones, and the scope of data (lifetime stats, per-token history, latest trades). This adds value beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose details about pagination, rate limits, or what 'latest trades raw' entails, which are minor given the readOnly annotation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the cost and purpose, and every sentence adds value. It packs essential information—cost, output scope, null behavior, and alternative tool—into two efficient sentences without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (though not detailed in this context, the description lists the key output types), the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the resource type, cost, edge case (untracked), and alternative. The tool is a simple single-parameter lookup, and the description is complete for that purpose.

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%, and the single parameter 'address' is described as 'Solana wallet, base58.' The description adds context that the address must be a tracked KOL for meaningful results, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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's purpose: it returns in-depth lifetime stats and per-token trade history for a tracked KOL (Key Opinion Leader). It specifies both the output content and the resource (a single tracked KOL address), and distinguishes it from the related check_wallet tool by noting that untracked addresses return null. The verb 'record' is specific, and the description makes clear this is a focused lookup, not a broad search.

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: when you need in-depth data for a tracked KOL. It also explains what happens if the address is untracked (returns null, costs nothing) and explicitly points to check_wallet as the alternative for any wallet. It does not state 'when not to use' explicitly, but the alternative routing is strong and sufficient.

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