Entity Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: Pro tier requirement, the 'verified vs chain at block N' stamp, and the caveat that vaults appear as named sub-accounts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: scope, output components, use cases, the reason entity-level aggregation matters, a domain caveat about vaults, and the access requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and not padded.

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 tool with no output schema and a complex return concept, the description covers the main outputs well and adds important operational context (Pro tier, vault behavior). It does not explain 'linked' wallets in detail or the exact meaning of the block-N verification stamp, but these are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that any wallet address works but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Resolve ANY wallet to its owner entity') and enumerates concrete outputs: master account, named sub-accounts, linked wallets, open books, combined positions, and a verification stamp. It also answers the exact questions the tool addresses, making it clearly distinguishable from per-wallet or trader-level siblings.

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 provides clear use cases ('who owns this wallet?', 'what is this trader's real total book?') and explains why entity-level resolution is needed ('per-wallet views undercount every multi-account trader'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria, so it stops 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.