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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Value') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, disclose permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple valuation tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description provides the chain and use case but lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., total value in USD, per-asset breakdown). This gap reduces completeness for an agent that needs to interpret the output.

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 50% (only 'owner' has a description). The description adds context that balances are of Stock Token/ETF/USDG, implying the 'symbols' parameter filters by these asset types, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or allowed values. This partially compensates but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Value a wallet's Stock Token / ETF / USDG balances on Robinhood Chain 4663.' It specifies the verb ('value'), resource ('balances'), and context ('for portfolio analysis of onchain RWA holdings'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle access, pricing, or execution.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use for portfolio analysis of onchain RWA holdings') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools. However, given the sibling list, no other tool performs valuation of holdings, so the guidance is adequate.

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