get_track_record

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses rate limiting, no auth, free status, and the key measurement limitation (hold-to-resolution vs. P&L). It also highlights verifiability through full public addresses, which is useful behavioral context.

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 dense but contains no wasted words: it covers purpose, metrics, endpoint, scope caveat, and access limits in a compact form. The first sentence is a bit long, but it front-loads the core identity effectively.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the key output components (win rate, ROI, odds-band breakdown, top-10 wallets) and operational details (rate limit, auth, endpoint). It is thorough for a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain inputs. It doesn't add parameter details because there are none, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless GET call.

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 identifies a specific deliverable ('Verifiable whale-calibration scorecard') and lists concrete metrics (win rate, ROI, odds-band breakdown, top-10 wallets). It distinguishes itself from the paid get_whales tool by positioning as the free proof, so it stands apart from siblings.

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 implies when to use it: as a free verification companion to get_whales. It also clarifies scope (entries held to resolution, not P&L) and access constraints (free, 5/min rate limit, no auth). However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for different needs.

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