q402_memory_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only and free access with any live API key, and details the exact data returned including failure/hold information. This is substantial transparency for a read-only summary tool, though it omits specifics like rate limits or error behavior.

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 efficient sentence listing all key outputs, followed by a usage sentence with concrete examples. Every phrase adds value; no filler or repetition. The structure front-loads the action and resource.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the full set of returned information, making it easy for an agent to predict results and decide if this tool fits a query. It also covers read-only access and API key requirements, so the context is complete for a summary tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (window enum with default 7d, walletId optional lowercased address). The description reinforces the window choices with usage examples but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool summarizes treasury activity with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('treasury activity'), and it enumerates detailed outputs (USD spent, tx count, breakdowns, vendors, payouts, escrow, failures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like q402_agent_spend_report or q402_balance.

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?

Explicit example queries are provided: 'summarize my treasury', 'why did my balance drop yesterday' (with window:24h), and 'what did we spend this week'. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for overlapping scenarios.

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