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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are USD-valued ERC-20 balances, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or how it handles invalid addresses, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 extremely compact, front-loading the resource and scope in the first sentence, with minimal wasted words. 'Free' adds a distinct cost note without bloating the definition.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the required address input and indicates the core output (USD-valued balances). It does not detail return structure or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage make this a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as an EOA address, and the description simply restates 'EOA address' without adding format specifics or examples. This matches the baseline of relying on 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (ERC-20 token balances) and scope (an EOA address), adding the useful detail that values are in USD. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cortex_token_price by the wallet-balance resource, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings or use an explicit verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Free' is a cost signal, not usage direction, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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