hyperd.wallet.anomaly

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 mentions the tool's cost ($0.10 in USDC), which is a behavioral trait, and implies read-only analysis (detecting anomalies). However, it does not disclose side effects, destruction, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description is fairly transparent but lacks some behavioral specifics.

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: three sentences. First sentence states purpose, second sentence enumerates detected patterns, third sentence gives use cases and cost. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description does not explain return values. It also omits error conditions or rate limits. Given the tool's complexity (analysis, cost), the description is moderately complete but could mention expected output format or error handling.

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 each parameter described adequately. The description adds context about the 180-day baseline and cost, but does not further enrich the meaning of parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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: 'Wallet behavioral anomaly detection.' It explains what it does (compares recent activity against a 180-day baseline, surfaces specific patterns) and provides use cases (catches compromised hot wallets, dormant whales, MEV-bot strategy shifts). This distinguishes it from siblings like hyperd.wallet.persona or hyperd.wallet.risk, which likely focus on profiling or risk scoring.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for anomaly detection, but lacks guidance such as 'use this when you need to detect behavioral anomalies' or 'for overall wallet risk, use hyperd.wallet.risk instead.' Some implicit guidance exists but is not explicit.

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