Wallet activity & behaviour

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: auth requirements (self-issued free OpenSea key or OPENSEA_API_KEY), that results vary with feed readability, and that every figure carries feed provenance plus stated blind spots. It stops short of rate limits or how the underlying source may be stale, but the added disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded correctly — the lead phrase states the tool's subject before the long enumeration — and every clause carries distinct information (outputs, marketplace sources, behaviour label, provenance caveat, auth). It is, however, a dense comma-chained sentence that is harder to scan than a short bulleted framing would be, and "Read-only; needs no key" partially restates the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: it names the aggregates, the per-flip detail, the behaviour label categories, and the conditional OpenSea additions, plus the key prerequisites. For a read-only, three-parameter tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret results is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches includeOpenSea beyond the schema by explaining the payoff of enabling it (plain transfers included, enabling "was this airdropped, gifted or bought?"). It also frames `pages` implicitly as the analysis window, though it never states the default size in the description itself.

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 opens with a compact specific framing ("How a wallet trades") and then enumerates the concrete outputs: buys/sells with SOL totals, net flow, listings and bids, marketplace breakdown, top collections, flips with hold time and P&L, a behaviour label, and first purchase. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_wallet_holdings (current positions) or get_recent_sales (market-wide), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the OpenSea-key condition and the "airdropped, gifted or bought?" question hint at when the tool is the right choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. get_wallet_holdings for balances, get_recent_sales for market flow). The reader must infer the selection criteria from the output enumeration.

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