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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical payment-gated behavior: without '_payment' it returns a 402 accept-list, with it returns findings. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status, but the scan nature implies safety. The pricing and referral CTAs are also noted.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pricing and payment instructions. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the types of findings (portfolio value, dust accounts, etc.) and mentions referral CTAs, giving a reasonable picture of the response. However, it could be more explicit about the format or structure of the findings.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value for '_payment' by explaining the consequence of missing it and the need for a signed authorization, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 the tool scans a Solana wallet for specific findings (portfolio value, dust accounts, stale stake accounts, low-liquidity warnings) and returns findings plus CTAs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like solana_wallet_security_audit_rules which likely focus on security audits rather than portfolio health.

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 usage for scanning a Solana wallet for the listed issues but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment mechanism.

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