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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the data source (Alchemy) and the x402 pay-per-call cost ($0.006 USDC on Base). It omits error behavior, what happens for unknown addresses, and pagination semantics, so disclosure is partial.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned data categories and followed by the cost note. Every clause carries information; there is no padding.

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 paid, multi-parameter data tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what data comes back and what it costs, but leaves return format, pagination (limit), and failure modes unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67%: chain and address are documented in the schema, while limit is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no address format, chain options, or limit semantics), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description leaves a real gap on limit.

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 states a specific resource (wallet profile) and enumerates the data categories it returns: balances, holdings, recent activity, and counterparty relationships. An agent understands the tool's scope, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like cortex_token_balances or cortex_tx_history that cover overlapping data.

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 choose this aggregated profile over the many sibling tools (cortex_aggregate_balances, cortex_tx_history, cortex_token_balances). The only usage-adjacent statement is the pricing note, which tells the agent it costs money but not when it is worth spending.

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