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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: decimals are normalized, a stake address aggregates all its addresses, and the response includes portfolio totals and recent trades. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or how unknown handles are handled.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the returned data and followed by accepted input forms. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 lookup with full annotation coverage, a fully described two-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what can be passed in. Ordering and the 1-50 cap on positions live in the schema, so no meaningful gap remains.

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 earns an upgrade by explaining that a stake1 address returns all its addresses combined and that $name is an ADA Handle, which the schema's pattern description does not spell out. The limit parameter's semantics remain entirely in 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?

States a specific resource (wallet holdings) with an enumerable payload: ADA balance, native tokens with decimal-adjusted balances, ADA/USD values, portfolio total and 24 h trades. It is clearly distinguishable from activity/PnL tools by what it returns, but it never names a sibling, and the 24 h trade component overlaps get_wallet_activity without saying which to prefer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the address-format sentence tells an agent what inputs are acceptable, so a reader can infer this is the balance lookup for an address, stake key, or handle. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_wallet_activity/get_wallet_pnl for overlapping questions.

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