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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful context: it returns protocol-level positions, asset/debt/net values, optional all-chain net worth, and complete cross-chain token lists when requested. It also notes that include_token_balances adds a billable provider request (though part of that is in the schema). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the core purpose, return contents, key parameter behavior, comparison to an alternative, and usage boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is moderately complex (cross-chain DeFi positions), but the description plus a rich input schema and output schema fully cover scope, return types, optional parameters, tool differentiation, and important exclusions. The agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces include_token_balances behavior and mentions optional net worth, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. It does not provide unique semantic value for wallet_address 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 clearly states the tool gets a wallet's DeFi positions across all DeBank-supported chains and protocols. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_defi_positions by noting it covers substantially more protocols and chains, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this for broad DeFi position retrieval, and use raw-RPC tools for liquidation, swap quotes, or transaction-critical questions. It also names the alternative get_defi_positions and explains the difference, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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