get_trader_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It provides actionable context: the data source (Traders subgraph), the exact data points (first appeared, CTF event types, USDC flows), and the ability to limit events via eventLimit. It does not elaborate on read-only behavior or error cases, but for a get operation, this is reasonably 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 a single, concise sentence that lists the tool's purpose and key data components without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately captures the main functionality and returned data categories. It could mention return structure or caveats, but the simplicity of the operation does not demand it.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (address and eventLimit), covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level insight, so a baseline 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 verb 'Get' and the resource: a trader's on-chain profile from the Traders subgraph. It enumerates specific contents (first appearance, recent CTF events, USDC flows), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_trader_usdc_flows or get_recent_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 implies a use case—obtaining a consolidated trader profile—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It mentions the data source (Traders subgraph) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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