Wallet profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses the monetary cost (~$0.01), the 15-minute delay for trade data, and that only the last 20 trades are included. This is notably transparent for what would otherwise be a paid, read-only data endpoint, though it does not cover edge behaviors like error conditions.

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?

Two short sentences with a bullet-like list provide cost, purpose, key outputs, and the parameter. Each piece of information is useful and none, is wasted. The most critical fact (paid) appears first.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what parameters will be needed, what the response will contain, cost, and freshness. It does not include any guidance about when to select this over other wallet-oriented siblings, but for simple invocation and a one-address query it covers all essentials.

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 schema already provides the exact argument: a required string `address` matching `^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$`. The description only repeats 'Param: address (0x…)', adding no meaningful semantic content—no explanation that this is an Ethereum wallet address, no context for what data is keyed on. Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only restates the parameter name and a partial format.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'one wallet's profile' and enumerates exact data items: Predge score, win rates (7d/30d), favorite categories, and last 20 trades. This specifies a concrete resource and distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_history (a record of activity) and wallets_compare (comparison between wallets).

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 context is implied: it is for inspecting a single wallet's profile rather than history, compare, or leaderboard. However, the description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and it does not mention sibling alternatives unlike the examples or other tools.

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