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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the details annotations cannot express: it is free, does not spend USDC, and invalid addresses error out without triggering payment. That cost/error behavior is precisely the missing context an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

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?

Front-loads 'Free teaser' and the pre-call ordering rule, then enumerates return fields, then fallbacks. Short declarative sentences, no filler, and every clause carries operational meaning.

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 still enumerates exactly what comes back and what a failure looks like. For a single-parameter read-only teaser tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already specifies base58 format, 32–44 character length, and an example. The description only restates 'pass one base58 Solana address,' adding the 'one' single-address constraint but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concretely what the tool returns: SOL balance, last active time, 24h transaction count, and a dormant/recently-active label. It also distinguishes itself from its siblings by naming wallet_quick, wallet_profile, and wallet_funding and what each of them adds.

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?

Explicit ordering instruction — 'Call this before any paid wallet tool' — plus a clear routing table to the three paid alternatives with the specific capability each offers. The agent knows exactly when to stop here versus upgrade.

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