get_wallet_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a transaction count and activity level, but it does not clarify the time window, how activity level is computed, whether it is read-only, or what the response format looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a wallet-related tool.

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 a single succinct sentence with no filler. It immediately states the core function and outputs, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description needs to explain the return value and behavioral nuances. It does not define 'activity level', the lookback period, or the response structure, leaving an agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents the address and network parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet activity') and indicates the output ('recent transaction count and activity level'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling transaction-history tools like market_get_wallet_transactions or aptos_get_account_transactions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools that provide wallet transactions or balances, and the description does not explain what 'activity level' uniquely offers or when a caller should prefer this tool over a transaction history or balance tool.

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