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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/not-idempotent. The description adds value beyond them: the top-25 token cap on holdings, contract-detection and ENS behavior, and the pricing/credit model ($0.01 USDC per call, x402 or prepaid, free trial). That pricing and result-cap context is genuinely useful and not in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then the sibling pointer, then the price. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing/trial sentence is somewhat tangential to selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-structure explanation is unnecessary. Given the read-only, open-world annotations, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context (scope limits, sibling routing, cost) and leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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 both address and chain are fully documented (format, enum, default base). The description only echoes the chain list already present in the enum, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Wallet profile on Base, Ethereum or Solana") and enumerates exactly what it returns: native balance, token holdings with USD values, total portfolio value, contract status, ENS name, transaction counts. It explicitly names the sibling /wallet/deep to differentiate scope.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for an adjacent need: "For recent transactions, counterparties and balance changes use /wallet/deep." It also discloses cost and trial status. It does not state general when-not conditions (e.g. Solana-specific limitations), but the alternative routing is clear.

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