get_wallet_activity

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: it samples from the most recent 1,000 transactions, is a heuristic indicator, and not an official metric. With no annotations, the description carries full weight and provides sufficient detail about what the tool does and its limitations.

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?

Description is two short paragraphs plus an Args line. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value (methodology, caveat, parameter). No unnecessary text.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers inputs, methodology, and caveats. It explains the scoring basis without needing to describe return values, leaving that to the schema. Sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 1 parameter 'address' with no description. The description adds 'The 0x-prefixed wallet address to check,' which provides format and purpose beyond the schema, compensating for 0% schema description 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?

Clearly states it computes a 0-100 on-chain activity score for a wallet on Base. The verb 'compute' and resource 'activity score' are specific. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance or check_rugpull_risk, which address different aspects.

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?

Explains the methodology (transaction count, active days, etc.) and that it's a heuristic, not an official metric. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, limiting guidance on selection.

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