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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context beyond them: the scope excludes non-agent wallets, excluded_wallets explains omissions, refresh=true is much slower because it performs a vendor round trip per wallet, and the tool only returns the current user's own data. These details materially affect correct invocation.

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 front-loaded with scope and purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter behavior. It is longer than typical but mostly justified by the tool's scope and refresh complexity, though some repeated emphasis on not double-counting wallets could be tightened.

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?

Given the output schema, the description does not need to document every return field, yet it still explains the key return structure: summary.hero_usd, summary.wallets, holdings.items, trading_balances.items, excluded_wallets, and scope. It also covers onboarding gating and freshness behavior, leaving no material gap for correct use.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single refresh parameter. It explains exactly what refresh=true does, how costly it is, and when it should and should not be used, which is more than enough to compensate for the missing schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns everything the user's agent holds in one call, with a combined total over the agent's own wallets only. It explicitly excludes Copy Trading and manual wallets and distinguishes itself from get_my_balances, so an agent can identify its role without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: start here for 'how am I doing', 'what do I own', and 'what is my agent worth'. It also names the alternative get_my_balances and the condition for using it instead, warns when refresh=true is appropriate, and says to go back to onboarding first when interview_due is true.

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