Top traders of a collection

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the metric is Magic Eden's own fills all-time, volume from other marketplaces is excluded, and high volume may include market makers or wash traders. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't describe output format.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core definition, then adds use cases, then a caveat with a sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned (wallets), how it is ranked (volume), limitations, and a follow-up strategy. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (symbol and limit) are already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the wallets with the most volume in a collection, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reflects Magic Eden's own fills and contrasts with get_wallet_activity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to identify top traders/whales) and when not to trust it alone, pointing to get_wallet_activity as the alternative for verifying a wallet's activity. This is direct, actionable guidance.

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