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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the pricing model, free-call quota, in-band x402 payment parameter, and that data comes from public RPCs only. These are material behavioral details an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 dense and mostly front-loaded, but it begins with billing terms before stating the core purpose. The token list and contract-internals enumeration are long, though they do help an agent understand the profile's scope.

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 annotations, full schema descriptions, enums, and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: payment behavior, data source, intended use, and sibling alternatives. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 input schema already documents both address and chain, including the base default and enum values. The description adds some context by noting Base or Ethereum addresses and that the address may be a wallet or contract, but it does not substantially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 transformation: 'Base or Ethereum address -> profile in one call,' and enumerates what the profile contains for EOAs, contracts, and EIP-7702-delegated EOAs. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tx_explain and contract_abi.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use wallet-profile before sending funds to or trusting an address (is it a contract? does it hold USDC?).' It also names alternatives and when to use them: tx-explain for one transaction and contract-abi for a contract's full interface.

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