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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the cost ($0.002) and that it's a snapshot, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether it calls external APIs, what happens with invalid addresses, or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the response format despite an output schema existing.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and cost. It is front-loaded with the essential action. It could add a bit more detail on parameters, but the brevity is appropriate.

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 the tool has 4 parameters but only 1 required, and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the main purpose and lists optional tokens, but doesn't cover the 'agent_id' parameter or chain defaults beyond what schema shows. The output schema exists, so return value details aren't required. It is adequate for a simple balance check, but missing some context.

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 0%, so the description must provide meaning beyond the schema. It explains that 'tokens' allows extra ERC-20s, and mentions 'address' and 'chain' implicitly. However, it does not explain the 'agent_id' parameter, nor does it clarify the format of the 'address' or 'chain' values. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it retrieves native + USDC balance for an address, with optional extra ERC-20s. It specifies a verb (snapshot), resource (wallet balance), and mentions the address parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling ddg_crypto_portfolio, which might also deal with balances, but the focus on a single address and specific tokens differentiates sufficiently.

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 it is for a single address's balances, and mentions optional extra tokens, which suggests use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of ddg_crypto_portfolio or other balance-related tools. No clear exclusions or alternatives are named.

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