Find early wallets on a pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly explains that results are window-relative, not launch-relative, and warns against overinterpreting early entry as skill or insider status. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or exact return shape, but the key behavioral caveat is well covered.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, followed by an important accuracy caveat and a short interpretive warning. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the third sentence is slightly interpretive rather than purely functional.

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?

The description covers the main limitation and intended use well, but because there is no output schema, an agent still has to infer the exact return format, such as whether it returns addresses alone or with additional metadata. For a fairly simple lookup tool this is workable, but it leaves some behavioral and return-shape details unstated.

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 documents topN, minUsd, network, and poolAddress with descriptions, giving roughly 75% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning to the output rather than to the parameters themselves, so it does not significantly improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's action and result: finding the earliest unique buyer wallets in chronological order from the returned trade data. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pool_trades or get_trending_pools by focusing on buyer wallets rather than trades or pool rankings.

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 gives explicit context on when results are most meaningful, noting accuracy on newly-created, lower-volume pools and warning that high-volume pools may only reflect a recent window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state hard exclusion criteria, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when the tool is appropriate.

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