Persistent Winners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral definition of persistence (distinct profitable calendar months in the 90-day window) and the exact fields returned, which is more than the annotations alone convey.

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 sentences carry the full purpose, the defining criterion, the return fields, and a memorable use-case phrase. Every clause earns its place and the key behavior 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields. All four parameters are documented in the schema, and the 90-day window and minMonths criterion make the tool's semantics clear. It could be even more complete by explicitly mapping N to minMonths or stating the sort order, but nothing essential to selecting or invoking it is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; limit, offset, minMonths, and useToonFormat are already described in the schema. The description adds the meaning of the core concept ('N+ distinct calendar months') that ties to minMonths, but it adds little about the other parameters.

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 names a specific operation and resource ('Find consistently profitable wallets'), defines the selection criterion precisely (profitable in N+ distinct calendar months of a 90-day window), and lists returned fields. The 'not just lucky once' framing distinguishes it from one-off winner tools like pulse_one_month_wonders even without naming a sibling.

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?

It explicitly gives the intended user question ('who is consistently good, not just lucky once?'), which tells an agent when to choose this tool. It does not name alternative tools or give negative guidance about when not to use it, though the criterion itself implies a contrast with single-month winners.

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