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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial context beyond them: it sums multiple accounts of the same token, includes Token-2022 tokens, sorts largest-first, and discloses that very large wallets are truncated to the most valuable holdings. The truncation behavior is a non-obvious limitation worth flagging.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying information (scope, aggregation rules, data provenance, truncation limit). The 'not advice' clause is marginally expendable but adds a small amount of provenance framing.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does: balance plus token holdings with symbols, USD prices and values, sorted by value. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or pagination semantics, but is adequate for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'largest first' aligns with the limit parameter's documented ordering but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise verb+resource: returns SOL balance and token holdings for a Solana address, with pricing detail. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like solana_token_price or solana_token_facts, which operate on a token rather than a wallet.

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 use case (fetch a wallet's holdings) is strongly implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as base_wallet_balances for other chains. The 'not advice' line is a disclaimer, not routing guidance.

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