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

In addition to the readOnly hints, the description reveals how the response changes based on `detail`, including the default output shape (total_usd, count, trimmedbalance entries) and the fuller shape of `full`. It also notes that returned IDs are meant for chaining, giving the agent useful expectations for downstream.

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: three sentences are tightly focused: what it returns, how modes differ, and how to position. It fits an agent workflow and uses non-redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema in place, a robust annotations block, and active description detailing mode semantics and workflow ordering, the entry is complete. The`caller_id` is the only marginal gap, and it's not essential to tool selection or core invocation correctness.

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?

The description adds a lot for `detail`, detailing the default value and exact effect of 'uscise' vs 'full'. However, it does not explain `caller_id` at all, and `wallet_address`'s format or validation behavior is not explicitly documented. Given 0% parameter description coverage in the schema, the description partially but not fully compensates.

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 the exact resource and scope: wallet token balances covering SOL plus all SPL tokens, and adds USD valuations. It further distinguishes itself by explaining the concise/full response modes and placing itself as the ORIENT/starting read, which is clearly distinct from nearby wallet-focused sibling tools.

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 explicitly names and marks this as 'ORIENT step' and the starting read 'for any flow', which tells an agent exactly when it should be selected. The instruction 'See get_trading_workflow' and the IDs 'for chaining into e.g. get_quotes' provide concrete routing guidance and references to related tools.

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