Wallet flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add behavioral value by disclosing a cost side effect ('Burns 2 SERA') and the data returned. It does not mention read-only/write status, first errors, or whether the wallet must exist in a tracked list, leaving gaps.

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 zero fluff. The purpose, target, data fields, and cost are all packed efficiently and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the user gets (list of five field categories) and the runtime cost. It could briefly state whether the wallet must already be tracked or what happens for unknown wallets, but the description is functionally adequate.

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 for the 'wallet' parameter is 100%, and the description only restates 'by address or label' without adding new semantics or prerequisites. The description therefore adds minimal value beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 provides wallet-level intel for one tracked wallet and enumerates the data fields returned (pattern tags, 30d PnL, win rate, activity, followers, bond). It does not name or differentiate against siblings like risk_scan, but the intended scope is evident.

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 phrase 'for one tracked wallet by address or label' implies when to use this tool (single-wallet intel), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the wallet must already be tracked).

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