trust_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (who leads, gap, unregistered agents), but does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple comparison tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it compares, the limit, and key output details. It lacks edge-case specifics (e.g., invalid addresses) but is sufficient for this straightforward 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 description coverage is 100% (the 'wallets' parameter is thoroughly described with min/max and purpose). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('trust scores of up to 5 wallets side-by-side'). It also mentions key outputs (who leads, score gap, unregistered agents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust_check that likely handle single-wallet checks.

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 when to use this tool (when comparing multiple wallets) and specifies the limit of 5 wallets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear for a comparison scenario.

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