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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the return shape (aggregate USD value with per-chain breakdown) and demonstrates the auth parameter (_apiKey) in the example. No contradiction with 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?

One tight sentence captures the purpose and output, followed by a practical invocation example. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every element contributes value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return (aggregate USD plus per-chain breakdown). Required parameters are covered by the schema and example invocation. Minor omissions like error handling or rate limits are acceptable for a straightforward read-only 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents chain, chains, _apiKey, and address. The description's example reinforces the expected usage pattern but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. 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 the specific operation (total portfolio net worth), the resource (wallet X), and the output characteristics (aggregate USD value with per-chain breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling wallet tools focused on tokens, history, or holders.

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?

The description clearly implies the use case: retrieve the total USD value of a wallet across chains. The concrete example ('moralis_wallet_net_worth({ address: ... })') shows exactly how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the wallet-related siblings.

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