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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists outputs (portfolio, activity, risk, labels, rankings, summary picks) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a tool that likely performs enrichment, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function ('Side-by-side comparison') and efficiently lists the compared aspects and outputs. Every word earns its place.

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 should explain the return values more fully. It mentions 'rankings and summary picks' but does not detail how the comparison is presented or what 'depth' affects. Given the moderate complexity and missing output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the comparison scope but does not clarify the meaning of the 'depth' parameter (light vs full), leaving ambiguity that the schema does not resolve. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('comparison') and resource ('wallets'), with explicit scope ('2-3 wallets') and content areas (portfolio, activity, risk, labels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enrich_wallet (single wallet) and compare_tokens (tokens).

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 implies use when comparing multiple wallets, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude cases. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so it relies on the agent inferring the context.

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