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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a cold wallet can take a minute or more, prescribes the exact retry behavior while a run is pending, and states results are cached for 15 minutes. It also clarifies the read spans every supported chain simultaneously plus Solana and Bitcoin, which the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations alone would not 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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the address-type and latency details, and the latency/retry/cache sentences each carry actionable information. The first sentence is long due to the enumerated output set, but no sentence is filler.

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 enumerating the returned categories (value, holdings, LP, lending net of debt, all-time profit). Combined with the latency, retry, and 15-minute cache semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret a pending response.

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 100%, so the address parameter is already fully documented as EVM/ENS/Solana/Bitcoin. The description restates the same accepted address forms without adding format examples or normalization rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Analyses) and resource (a wallet) and enumerates the exact output scope: total value, holdings, LP positions with fee rates and range status, lending positions net of debt, and all-time profit. The domain is unmistakably distinct from siblings get_market_prices and get_venue_rates, which operate on markets and venues rather than a specific address.

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?

Gives operational usage guidance: one call covers all supported chains for an EVM address, and if the response says it is still running, call again with the same address. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the siblings are in unrelated domains so exclusion guidance is less critical.

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