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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.1 USDC per call), the first call returns payment requirements, and the output includes profile, balances, and tags. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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, well-structured paragraph: first sentence states purpose, second lists capabilities, third explains payment. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately lists output contents (profile, balances, tags). It does not cover edge cases or error conditions, but the explanation of the two-step payment process is thorough and compensates for the lack of output schema.

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%, but the description adds significant value by detailing the payment signature flow (EIP-712 signing, base64 token format), which is not obvious from the schema. This goes beyond the bare parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('wallet intelligence') and lists explicit capabilities (address profile, EOA vs smart contract, token balances, activity classification, behavior tags), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'get_crypto_prices' or 'get_gas_prices'.

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 explains the two-step payment flow (call without payment_signature first, then with it) and specifies supported networks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand the unique value and required payment process.

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