Wallet track-record attestation — signed win/loss record (flagship)

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

The description explicitly discloses that it is paid (~$0.02), uses Ed25519 signing, verifies offline against a public key, and returns 404 without charging if no resolved trades exist. This provides excellent transparency about costs, verification method, and error behavior, exceeding typical descriptions.

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 redundant and repetitive. It states the signing and verification twice, and lists parameters twice in slightly different order. Phrases like 'PayPal... PAYMENT' and the duplicated mention of 'signed' and 'verifies offline' could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 description provides key information about payment, verification, and error handling, but lacks details about the response structure (e.g., the format of the signed attestation). With no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the return value's shape, though it may suffice for basic 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?

Both parameters are described: 'address' with format (0x…) and 'window' with enum values (7d|30d) and default (30d). The description also explains the window's effect on resolved trades and the 404 condition. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly define 'window' as a time period, but context implies it.

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's purpose: providing a signed attestation of a wallet's track record over resolved Polymarket markets, with offline verification via a public key. It also specifies payment and the condition for no charge, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for obtaining tamper-evident proof of a wallet's win/loss history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the paid nature and the 404 condition, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools.

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