mtrkr_companion_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: coaching-style output, heuristic strategyProfile, linked wallets merging, points being user-asserted, API versioning, and dual GET/POST behavior. It could be more explicit about read-only nature, but overall transparent.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, but then dives into many technical details (linkedWallets, outbound tx counts) which could be streamlined. It is not succinct, but each sentence adds some value.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description provides substantial context on what the tool returns (coaching output, transaction ledger, points alignment). It covers the core behavior and edge cases, though missing parameter explanations.

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 only 20% (only address described). The description does not explain wave, waveId, whichWave, or points beyond a brief mention in context. Low coverage requires compensation from description, which is lacking.

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 states the tool's purpose: wallet transaction analytics for the MegaETH Terminal bonus campaign, wave-to-wave companion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (compare, get) by specifying its focus on per-wave analysis and coaching-style output, and clarifies it is not official campaign scoring.

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 usage for analyzing wallet interactions within campaign waves but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like compare or get. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, only context about the campaign.

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