wallet_network

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: cost, the bounded nature of the second hop, and the specific data categories (counts, shared tokens, direction). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads cost and core functionality, then adds a differentiating contrast. Every word contributes; no 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 an output schema is present, the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It explains what the tool returns at a high level and mentions a key limitation (bounded second hop). It's complete enough for an agent to call safely.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (address as Solana wallet, base58). The description adds no new semantic detail about that parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: maps who a wallet is wired to, with concrete outputs (direct counterparts, interaction counts, shared tokens, transfer direction, bounded second hop). Explicitly contrasts with check_wallet, distinguishing it from a close sibling.

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?

Provides a clear usage contrast with check_wallet ('what it DID' vs 'who it MOVES WITH'), guiding when to prefer this tool. Doesn't enumerate alternatives like token_graph or funder_networks, but the single contrast is sufficient for the main decision.

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