tracker_report

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, data returned, authentication requirements). Only pricing and API endpoint are mentioned, which are insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 very short but lacks structure. It combines a Chinese title, pricing, and API URL in a single line. While concise, it sacrifices clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tracking report contains. It does not. For a single-parameter tool, this is insufficient for the agent to understand the return value and use the tool effectively.

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% with a description for 'address' ('钱包或合约地址'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already covers the parameter adequately. Baseline 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 reads '[Market] 追踪报告' (Market Tracking Report) and includes pricing/API URL, but does not explicitly state what the tool does. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'address_balance' or 'address_risk', which also involve addresses. The verb 'track' is implied but not clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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