analyze_treasury_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('analyze') and lists output metrics, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, data freshness, or behavior when inputs are invalid. The description adds value by specifying conditional output based on daily_burn_usd.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key outputs. The second sentence ('Critical for autonomous decision-making') adds emphasis but is slightly redundant. It is efficient without wasting words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description comprehensively lists the metrics returned (balances, gas runway, days of runway, rebalance recommendation). It adequately informs the agent of what to expect, though it omits details like return format or error scenarios.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description enhances understanding by explaining the conditional impact of daily_burn_usd (provides days of operational runway and rebalance recommendation) and clarifies the wallet address as the agent's 0x address.

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: analyzing an agent wallet's treasury health, including specific metrics like GBLIN/USDC/ETH balances, gas runway, and optionally days of operational runway and rebalance recommendation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_treasury_state (which likely returns raw state) or investment/swap tools.

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 use for treasury health analysis and decision-making but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusion criteria or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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