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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: priced at $0.06/call over x402 on Base, prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key required.

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-loaded with the purpose and aggregation logic before payment details. Mostly earns its place, though 'flagship wallet report' and 'One call, agent-ready wallet intelligence' are marketing filler that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and payment/auth requirements are fully disclosed. Adequate for a single-parameter tool, with only the verdict's analytical scope left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'address'. The description restates 'Required input: address' but adds no syntax, format, or chain-scoping detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 a specific synthesis: aggregates net worth, age/activity and recent transactions, then AI produces a verdict (fresh/risky vs established/active). This composite 'AI verdict' framing clearly sets it apart from raw siblings like wallet_networth, wallet_summary or wallet_activity without needing to name them.

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?

Implies when to use it ('one call, agent-ready wallet intelligence' for a verdict) and states the required input, but never names an alternative for a narrower need (e.g. use wallet_networth for just numbers) or any when-not condition. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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