obol_wallet_pnl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost ($0.15 USDC), which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any other behavior (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). This is a significant gap for a tool that could be expensive or have side effects.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently packs the main purpose and cost. It could be slightly better front-loaded with the word 'P&L' but overall it is concise and free of fluff. Every phrase adds value.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a P&L report, a summary, specific metrics). It only says 'analysis' without describing the output format or contents. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., does the wallet need to have activity?). This is inadequate for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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%, so the address parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the address (e.g., format, network, how it is used). Baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of 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?

States a specific resource ('Wallet P&L analysis') and lists covered aspects (token flows, current values, transaction history). The verb 'analysis' is clear, and the tool is distinct from siblings like obol_wallet_overview or obol_wallet_activity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions other tools or conditions (e.g., 'use this for profit/loss insights'). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description, which is insufficient given four other wallet-related tools.

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