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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pricing model ($0.003/call, 10 free/day, x402 options), empty-account handling as reclaimable rent, and isError semantics for invalid input or upstream failure (not charged). This is more than the annotations provide.

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 capability, then scoping, then usage, pricing, and errors in a compact structure. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing clause is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It complements the schema by covering chain scoping, pricing, error semantics, and empty-account treatment — everything an agent needs to invoke correctly is present.

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 100% with only one parameter (wallet) fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description implies input validation via its error clause but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: it returns everything a Solana wallet holds, enumerating SOL, SPL, and Token-2022 tokens, with USD valuation and value sorting. It distinguishes from the EVM sibling by naming evm_address for EVM wallets. However, it doesn't name its closest Solana siblings (e.g., pump_wallet, solana_network), so the differentiation is good but not fully sharp.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' guidance is provided: use for Solana wallets, and switch to evm_address for EVM wallets. It also discloses pricing and error semantics. It lacks guidance on when-not-to-use beyond the chain selector, but the chain-specific routing is clear.

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