Compare wallets side-by-side

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool is paid (~$0.02) and describes exactly what results are returned (scores, win rates, modeled PnL, market overlap). It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but the cost disclosure is a valuable behavioral detail beyond basic operation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the most important operational detail (cost). It efficiently conveys purpose, parameter constraints, and expected output in two sentences with zero wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: cost, purpose, metrics, and parameter format. It lacks discussion of potential errors or edge cases, but for a comparison endpoint, this is reasonably complete.

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 fully defines the 'addresses' parameter with pattern, minItems, and maxItems. The description's 'Param: addresses (2-10 0x… addresses)' mostly repeats this structured information without adding deeper semantic meaning like ordering, duplicates, or edge cases. It is adequate but not additive.

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 a specific action (side-by-side comparison) on a specific resource (wallets) with a defined scope (2-10 wallets) and lists the output metrics (scores, win rates, modeled PnL, market overlap). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like predge_wallet_profile, which focuses on a single wallet.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for multi-wallet comparison, which implies when to use it versus single-wallet tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for single-wallet analysis.

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