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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that: it lists potential errors (invalid_chain, invalid_address, upstream_not_ready), clarifies no account access or order placement, includes a disclaimer, and notes Solana-specific output additions. These are valuable behavioral disclosures not present in annotations.

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 packed with information but remains efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides aliases, errors, an alternative, and a safety disclaimer. No redundant sentences; each clause adds useful content. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good overview of the response contents (asset summary, balances, labels/risk) and error cases. It also clarifies chain handling and the alternative for transfers. However, it does not describe the exact response structure or pagination, which could be inferred from the parameter `min_value_usd` but is not explicitly stated. Still, it is fairly complete for a read-only info tool.

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. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics, such as chain aliases (op→optimism, avax|avalanche-c→avalanche) and behavior of scope/errors. It also hints at the effect of chain on output (Solana adds fields). This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Wallet profile' and enumerates the specific data contents (asset_summary, token_balances, multi_chain_token_balances, labels/risk). It also names a sibling tool for transfers, distinguishing itself from alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly directs transfers to get_address_transactions, providing a clear alternative for a specific use case. It states it's read-only public research data, implying appropriate contexts. However, it does not give comprehensive guidance on when to choose this over other info tools, such as token-specific or platform-specific tools.

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