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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context: prices come from the coin's last price, only on-chain-recognized higher.fun coins are counted so look-alikes are excluded, and the mints path is cheaper for large wallets. It stops short of saying whether all holdings are returned or how results are ordered/limited.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the recognition caveat, then the parameter shortcut — no filler. The parenthetical about the LaunchLab pool is slightly dense but earns its place by defining what counts as a higher.fun coin.

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 explaining the return payload, and it does so (SOL balance plus per-coin balances valued at last price). The main remaining gap is whether results are paginated, capped, or sorted for wallets holding very many coins.

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 meaning the schema does not: mints is a performance optimization for wallets with thousands of tokens, and the on-chain recognition note explains why some held tokens are absent. It does not restate the address format, correctly leaving that to 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 names a concrete verb and resource ('a wallet's SOL balance and its balances in higher.fun coins') and states how values are computed (last price). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling like get_wallet_profile or get_coin_holders, so the agent must infer the boundary from the description alone.

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 explicit conditional guidance for the optional parameter: pass mints to check only those coins, 'which is faster and works for wallets holding thousands of tokens.' That is real when-to-use advice, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling wallet/coin tools.

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