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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those: it never establishes legal ownership, never recommends SEND, and never signs, verifies, or transfers anything. These negative guarantees are valuable safety context for an agent deciding whether to rely on this tool for execution.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states what the tool reads, the second adds a legal/ownership caveat, and the third reaffirms its non-execution behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the most important identifying information 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent discovery tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the domain, the data categories, and the safety boundaries. It does not detail the output format, but it does mention schemas, endpoints, and price, and no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds domain context by listing what will be read (Base, Ethereum, Solana, schemas, endpoints, price), which helps an agent anticipate the scope of the result even though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a clear verb, 'Read', and specifies the exact resources: the Base, Ethereum, and Solana wallet-control sequence, identity-context boundary, schemas, endpoints, and price. It is not a tautology of the name and clearly identifies the tool as a discovery capability, distinguishing it from execution-oriented tools.

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 clearly frames the tool as 'This discovery call', which tells the agent when to use it, and explicitly states what it never does: 'never signs, verifies, or transfers anything'. This provides useful exclusions, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or define when a sibling should be chosen instead.

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