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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input modes, return values, and optional metrics. However, it does not mention error behavior for providing both or neither address, nor any performance implications beyond what the schema already notes. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, input modes, and return values. It does not elaborate on all parameters (e.g., start_time, end_time) but the schema fully documents those. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward wallet lookup 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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the outputs (EOA, proxy, wallet type, metrics) but largely paraphrases the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Fetches wallet information') and clearly identifies the two input modes (EOA or proxy) and the output contents. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dome_wallet_profitandloss, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use this tool: when you have an EOA or proxy wallet address and need associated wallet details or optional trading metrics. It provides context (either/or input, optional metrics) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it gets a 4.

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