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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context with the per-call cost and the expected output content, but it does not explain how the analysis is sourced, how unsupported wallets are handled, or the payment-flow behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with the cost front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing and earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, the description provides the key missing piece: what the tool returns. It lacks sibling-routing guidance and payment-flow details, but those are either inferable or covered by the schema, so basic invocation is adequately supported.

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 both the address and payment parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referencing wallet portfolio analysis, which meets the baseline without needing to compensate.

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 clearly states the operation ('analysis') and resource ('wallet portfolio'), and specifies the output content ('token balances and USD valuation'). It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like defi_lp_analytics or token_security.

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 use case is implied by the phrase 'wallet portfolio analysis,' so an agent can infer when it might be relevant. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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