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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only 'Get' operation and lists included data, but does not mention limitations, rate limits, or caveats about risk score computation. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then enumerates the profile contents. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description provides a reasonable list of output categories, effectively communicating the return value. It falls short of a 5 only because it lacks any usage context or differentiation from similar wallet tools.

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 documents both the address and depth parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource (Solana wallet profile) with a list of concrete data points (SOL balance, token holdings, DeFi positions, labels, risk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enrich_token (token-focused) and wallet_history (transactions).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_graph, wallet_history, or compare_wallets. The description lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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