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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that valuations may lag the chain, that finalized is ~20-24 min behind head on Base, and that provisional rows move share balances only while cost-basis columns and aggregates remain finalized-tier. These are exactly the behavioral traps an agent would otherwise fall into.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource before the finality detail, and every sentence carries operational information. It is dense and jargon-heavy but not padded; the tier explanation is long yet justifies its length.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the hard parts: valuation opt-in, price scale, unit conventions, and finality semantics. The one material omission is pagination behavior for `cursor` and the purpose of `marketAddress`, which an agent must guess.

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 only 17%, so the description is expected to carry the load, but it clarifies only `include` (which the schema already documents) and the role of walletAddress. It says nothing about limit, cursor pagination, chainId, or marketAddress, leaving four parameters with no semantics anywhere.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource ('Get token positions for a wallet address') and immediately enumerates the payload: share balances, cost-basis ledger, per-outcome cost basis, realized P&L. An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like kellian_get_balance, but the ledger/cost-basis framing is distinctive enough to infer the split.

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 gives concrete conditional guidance: pass include="valuation" for mark-to-market, and it explains which tier to consult for settlement truth ('finalized ... is the only settlement truth') versus when a just-made trade shows up ('provisional ... here immediately'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool for the case where you only want plain balances.

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