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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the call is slow (often over a second) and the payload can be returned in a warm-up state flagged by 'loading', with an explicit retry instruction. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 core purpose, latency warning and loading behavior are front-loaded in three tight sentences. The trailing 'blockchain' and 'address' lines duplicate the schema verbatim and are the only wasted space.

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 is present, so return-value shape need not be explained, and both parameters are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is that it never states what an agent should use instead when it needs faster or historical wallet data, which matters given the large sibling set.

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%, with both 'address' and 'blockchain' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of the chain list and address definition adds no meaning beyond the schema; the only extra is the wallet-type note that actually lives in the schema, not here.

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 ('Current onchain token holdings of a wallet') and immediately draws the defining distinction from sibling wallet tools: data is read live rather than derived from tracked trades. An agent can tell this apart from get_wallet_history or get_wallet_tracker without opening either 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 signals that this is 'slower than the other wallet tools' and gives retry guidance when 'loading' is true, which implies a usage context. However, it never names the alternatives or states the condition under which an agent should prefer them, so the when-to-use decision is left to inference.

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