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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful operational behavior: it runs a risk check on each holding, reports USD in risky tokens, costs $0.15 per call, supports a prepaid x-credit-token header, and requires no wallet or API key. These are behavioral details an agent needs beyond annotation booleans.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the pricing/auth notes are useful. But the whole-wallet framing is repeated three times: 'Audit a whole wallet', 'Pulls a wallet's holdings', and 'One call audits the whole wallet', which adds redundancy without new meaning.

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?

With one required parameter, a complete input schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining operational essentials: required input, cost/credit mechanism, free tier, and no-key requirement. It does not need to explain the return shape because the output schema already exists. It is only mildly incomplete in not routing the agent to alternative tools.

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?

The schema covers the single address parameter 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only repeats 'Required input: address' and confirms the address is the wallet to audit, adding little beyond the schema's 'Wallet address'.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it pulls a wallet's existing holdings and runs a per-position risk check, flagging honeypots, high-risk, and illiquid positions with USD exposure. It clearly frames the tool as a whole-wallet audit rather than a single-token check. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with overlapping 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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'One call audits the whole wallet' and 'which of the things you already hold could hurt you' tells an agent this is for auditing existing wallet holdings, not arbitrary addresses or tokens. It does not state explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools by name.

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