get_wallet_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope of the return data (balances, SuiNS, staking, NFTs, transactions) and the include_prices option for USD values. However, it omits potential caveats such as pagination, performance limits, or network-specific behavior, which leaves some gaps for a comprehensive aggregate tool.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and contents, and the second giving a concise parameter tip. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the major return categories (token balances, SuiNS name, staked SUI count, kiosk/NFT count, recent transactions) and explains the optional price inclusion. It also provides a clear usage context relative to sibling tools. It does not detail the exact result structure, but for a high-level overview tool this is acceptable and the sibling tools can provide more depth.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by highlighting include_prices as the way to get USD values and portfolio value, but this largely mirrors what the schema already explains. No additional syntax or format details are provided 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 begins with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive overview of a Sui wallet'), and explicitly enumerates the included data (token balances, SuiNS name, staked SUI count, kiosk/NFT count, recent transactions). It also positions itself as the recommended first tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or list_nfts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Recommended first tool for wallets' and 'Start here before drilling into specific tools.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool as an entry point and implies that more specific tools should be used afterward. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the directive is clear and actionable.

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