List tracked wallets

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

The description discloses the 'Burns 1 SERA' cost, a key behavioral side effect, and enumerates the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status or other potential side effects, relying on the absence of annotations.

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 two concise sentences: the first lists the output fields, the second states the cost. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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?

While the description lists output fields and the cost, it omits the filtering capability (tag parameter) and the limit parameter's behavior, which are present in the schema but not explained. Given no output schema, the description should have clarified these aspects for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 50% – only 'tag' is described, while 'limit' lacks a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the limit parameter or the filtering behavior, so agents may not understand how to use these parameters effectively.

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 lists tracked wallets and enumerates the specific data fields returned (labels, tags, 30d PnL, win rate, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like seranox_list_pairs or seranox_get_pair.

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 listing tracked wallets but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear, but there is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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