Wallet deposits, withdrawals, transfers and liquidations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the default result window is the last 30 days, meaning calls silently truncate historical scope unless since/until are set. Missing are rate limits, truncation/pagination behavior when results exceed limit, and whether an invalid or unknown address returns an error or an empty set.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope in one sentence, then the time-format rules. Every sentence carries information the schema does not. The format enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item is load-bearing for correct invocation.

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?

For a read-only, 4-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource scope, the default time window, and the time-format contract. An agent can call it correctly from this plus the schema. It would be stronger if it clarified ordering of returned rows or the relationship to the trades/funding siblings.

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 75% and the two thin parameters are exactly the ones the description rescues: since/until are documented in the schema only as "Default 30d", while the description spells out the accepted forms (relative like "30m"/"7d", ISO date, date-time, "now", Unix ms). It adds no semantics for limit or address, but those are already fully described in the schema.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ("Money movements for a wallet") and enumerates the included categories: deposits, withdrawals, sends, spot/perp transfers, vault deposits and liquidations. That enumeration distinguishes it well from siblings like wallet_trades or wallet_funding. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g. hydromancer_recent_liquidations, which overlaps on the liquidation category), so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 never states when to choose this tool over hydromancer_wallet_trades, hydromancer_wallet_funding, or hydromancer_recent_liquidations, all of which plausibly overlap. The only usage-adjacent information is the default 30-day window, which is a behavioral fact rather than routing guidance.

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