Get Public Profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the profile is 'public' and the operation is a 'Get', implying a read-only action, but it does not disclose response format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure and not enough for a tool operating without annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence of seven words: 'Get public profile by wallet address.' Every word carries meaning and there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core function and key parameter. However, it lacks context about what fields the profile contains, whether it works for any wallet address, and any edge cases. For a public profile getter this is sufficient but with clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema provides only a parameter name 'user_address' with type string and no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by identifying it as a 'wallet address', which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format, examples, or whether it accepts an ENS name or only a hex address, so compensation is partial.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'public profile', and adds the important qualifier 'by wallet address', which clarifies the input parameter. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_user_activity or get_user_positions aside from the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_activity or get_user_positions. There are no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool.

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