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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description echoes ('anything that buys, sells or writes refuses'). The description adds the note 'their data comes back as it is' (raw data) and 'Called through their seat', which is useful context but not extensive. 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 opens with the core purpose, but then includes extraneous information ('a live seat on The Wall', 'Listing: ...') that is not directly useful for invoking the tool. It is not overly long but includes marketing-style content that could be trimmed. Structure is decent but not fully focused.

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 tool has 3 parameters, none required, but no explanation of how to supply a wallet if address is omitted. No output schema exists, and the description gives no indication of the return format or possible errors. For a simple read tool, this is a meaningful gap, especially given the ambiguity around required parameters and authentication expectations.

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 67%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does. The phrase 'omit for SOL' clarifies the mint parameter, and the title implies address is the wallet, adding meaning the schema lacks for 'address'. However, the address parameter still lacks explicit documentation, and no description of authCode beyond what the schema 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 'Token or SOL balance for a wallet' – a clear verb+resource combination that tells an agent the tool retrieves a balance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like orbitx_get_wallet or orbitx_get_token, relying on the tool name to imply the distinction.

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 offers context about the tool being read-only ('Read-shaped tools only') and mentions that data comes back as-is, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or mention that address may be required despite being optional in the schema.

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