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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing that Solana returns every SPL token held, EVM returns popular tokens plus passed addresses, and the result also includes transactions sent and a contract flag. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight and front-loaded, leading with the primary action and then adding chain-specific return details without filler. Every sentence contributes useful scope information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains key return contents: balances, transactions, and contract status. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could say more about response shape or read-only/rate-limit behavior.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that EVM results include popular tokens by default and that the tokens parameter adds extra EVM token addresses. It also clarifies chain-specific return behavior beyond the enum description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Get a wallet's balances") and enumerates exactly what is returned: native coin, tokens, transactions, and contract status. It is clear enough to distinguish the tool from a generic wallet check, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling check_wallet tool.

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 explains chain-specific token behavior, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of check_wallet, get_token_info, or get_transaction. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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