Compare Traders

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that this tool operates on lifecycle summaries and enumerating the metrics included (win rate, PnL, hold duration, fees, liquidations). It does not address output format details, but the schema covers useToonFormat.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states function and scope, the second gives an explicit use case. Every element earns its place, and the key constraint '2-5 wallets' 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?

The description is largely complete: it explains the comparison purpose, the wallet-count bounds, the data source, and the returned metrics, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It could be slightly richer by noting whether results are pre-aggregated or require closed lifecycles, but this is not a major gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the wallets parameter by mentioning '2-5 wallets' and signals the output content, but it adds no new meaning about parameter syntax, formats, or the useToonFormat behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Side-by-side comparison'), a precise resource ('2-5 wallets via their lifecycle summaries'), and the exact metrics returned. It clearly differentiates from the many single-trader and lifecycle sibling tools by focusing on head-to-head comparison.

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 explicitly says 'Use for head-to-head trader comparison' with a concrete example question, which gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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