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

The annotations already carry the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by clarifying scope (wallet holdings, not all ledger accounts) and naming the expected output fields: quantity, cost basis, market value, unrealized gain/loss, and portfolio totals.

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 sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output contents, and the second narrows the scope and points to an alternative.

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 simple, read-only query with three fully described parameters, the description covers both the included scope and the excluded accounting scope. It also enumerates the returned dimensions, which is especially valuable given that no output schema is provided.

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%, and each parameter already has practical semantics, e.g., 'exact name or slug' and 'asset symbol or canonical asset id'. The description confirms the asset is a cryptocurrency/token but does not need to add much beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific action: 'Summarize one cryptocurrency or token across every wallet' with a clear resource and result. It also draws a boundary against ledger/accounting reporting, helping the agent differentiate this from related sibling tools.

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?

It clearly frames when the tool is appropriate for wallet-level holdings and gives an explicit exclusion for balance-sheet/accounting needs. It could be stronger by naming the exact sibling alternative, but the routing direction is still clear.

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