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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it declares READ-ONLY by design, states it cannot move funds, that it refuses private keys or seed phrases, and quantifies cost at 2 credits per call. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a wallet tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope, followed by the safety constraint and then the cost. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields, chain scope, safety posture and cost, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of describing address formats per chain or error behavior for invalid/empty wallets.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the chain enum values (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana), explains address as a public wallet address, and describes include_signals as a risk check on the biggest holdings. Minor gap: the schema frames include_signals as a scan on the native coin while the description says 'biggest holdings', a slight mismatch, and address length limits are unmentioned.

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 (look up) and resource (public wallet address) plus the exact chains supported and the fields returned: balance, USD value, token holdings, transaction count, optional risk check. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_markets, crypto_search, crypto_coin and get_balance.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies: a public wallet address on one of three named chains, with an optional risk-check flag. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. crypto_signals for the standalone signal scan), so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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