Solana wallet profile ($0.02)

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description supplies the context annotations cannot: per-call cost ($0.02), a refusal guarantee on stale feeds before payment, the coverage window (last 3000 mints), and the degraded result shape for unranked wallets. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before spending money or deciding whether a null result is an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the cost and the primary use case, then the return contents, then the exclusion, then the input - a sensible ordering. It is dense with semicolon-chained clauses, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself: class, PnL with window and build time, holdings, creator stats, funding source, and the null-class case. Combined with cost and freshness behavior, this is complete enough for an agent to call it and interpret the response without further sources.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('base58 Solana wallet address (32-44 chars)'). The description's 'Input: address (base58 wallet)' merely restates the schema, adding no format, encoding, or validation detail beyond it, so the 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 ('classify a wallet that buys pump.fun tokens') and enumerates the concrete outputs (insider/latency_bot/skilled class, realised PnL, holdings, creator stats, funding source). It also names the sibling it is not ('not a mint's rug risk (use check_pumpfun_risk)'), so an agent can separate it from mint_risk_card/token_safety without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('classify a wallet that buys pump.fun tokens') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the correct alternative named (check_pumpfun_risk for mint rug risk). The unranked-wallet case is also pre-empted (null class, no PnL), which prevents misuse when the wallet is not on the leaderboard.

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