Wallet-entity appearances across tokens

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations with two high-value facts: the archive is recorded live and cannot be rebuilt retroactively (so results are bounded by scan history), and each call costs $0.05 USDC on Base. Neither is derivable from structured fields. Missing only note on latency or result limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it returns before the archive caveat and the price. Dense but every clause carries information; minor packing of four return categories into one sentence.

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 exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (balances then/now, identity, insider/deployer records). For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the only real gap is absence of guidance on when to prefer sibling tools.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The wallet address (0x…) to look up'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted address formats beyond 0x or whether non-EVM identifiers are allowed; 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 ('follow') and resource ('a wallet across the accumulated holder-snapshot archive') and enumerates the returned content: per-token appearances, balance then/now, ENS/Farcaster identity, insider/deployer records. It is clearly distinct from robinx_deployer or robinx_token, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'follow a wallet across...' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to overlapping siblings like robinx_wallet, robinx_deployer, or robinx_smart_holders. The agent must infer the boundary from the wording alone.

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