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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It details the output contents (daily snapshots of value, balance, holdings, risk score, and summary stats) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation or mention any permissions or rate limits. The output detail helps, but the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure leaves some ambiguity.

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 sentences with no filler; the first sentence packs in the core scope and output details, and the second gives a clear use case. It is slightly dense but well-organized and appropriately concise.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, key inputs, output fields, and supported periods. It does not mention pagination, units, or timezone behavior, but these are minor for this tool type.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (address and period), including enum values for period. The description reinforces these fields ('over 7/14/30 days' and 'wallet') but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as providing a full portfolio time-series for a wallet, enumerating data points and supported periods. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'returns' or 'fetches' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool wallet_history.

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 states an explicit use case: 'For charting and PnL tracking,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the use-case guidance is valuable.

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