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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: exact chain coverage, token coverage, absence of USD valuation, and an atypical cost of $0.01. It omits failure modes (invalid/empty address, unsupported chains) and any rate-limit or auth context, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, scope front-loaded, with the two most decision-relevant caveats (no USD pricing, $0.01 cost) trailing as punchy fragments. No padding.

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 must characterize returns, and it does so at the right altitude: chains, native plus 8 tokens, and the absence of USD prices. It does not cover partial-coverage cases (e.g., unlisted tokens, chains with no activity), which is the only notable gap.

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 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it never mentions the single address parameter or its format. The schema's 0x{40} pattern does convey the required format on its own, so the gap is real but not severe.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (wallet snapshot) and immediately bounds it: three named chains, native balance plus 8 major tokens per chain with examples. The cross-chain portfolio scope implicitly distinguishes it from the per-chain siblings like ethereum_address_inspect and bsc_address_inspect.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it is for portfolio overview across chains, and the 'No USD pricing' note usefully sets expectations, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the per-chain inspect tools and no stated prerequisites.

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