wallet_find_similar

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose, with no details about how similarity is computed, what data sources are used, whether this is a heavy or long-running operation, or what the output represents. The lack of any efficiency or side-effect information leaves the agent guessing.

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 sentence with no filler. It is concise, but its brevity sacrifices necessary context. Still, there are zero wasted words, so it scores above average.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how 'similarity' is defined, or how the parameters affect results beyond the basic schema hints. For a tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (address, chain, limit). The description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('find') and resource ('wallets') with a qualifier ('similar behavior patterns'). It differentiates from sibling tools like wallet_score or wallet_profile which assess individual wallets, while this tool focuses on discovering related wallets. However, 'similar behavior patterns' is vague and doesn't mention the required reference address that anchors the search.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like wallet_detect_whales or wallet_token_holder_analysis. There's no mention of use cases such as investigating a wallet's network or finding related addresses. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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