trust_compare

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses some outputs (leaders, gap, unregistered agents) but does not mention whether it is read-only, rate limits, error handling for invalid wallets, or any side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence covering purpose and key outputs. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what results to expect. Minor ambiguity about return format (e.g., does it show all scores or just relative?), but acceptable.

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% (the only parameter 'wallets' is fully described). Description adds 'up to 5 wallets' but this is redundant with the schema's maxItems. No additional meaning 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 states the tool compares trust scores of up to 5 wallets side-by-side and specifies outputs: who leads, score gap, and unregistered agents. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'trust_check' (likely single wallet) and 'team_trust_check' (team-based).

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?

Usage is implied for multi-wallet comparison, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'trust_check' for single wallet, 'team_trust_check' for teams), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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