get_token_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every SPL token and fields including USD value where available. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid wallet), potential pagination, or rate limits, which slightly reduces transparency. Still mostly adequate for a simple read 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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds return fields and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks details on return format or error behavior, but for this straightforward tool, it is sufficient.

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 the 'wallet' parameter already well-described in the schema. The tool description reaffirms the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantic details beyond the tool's overall function. Slight extra value in contextualizing the parameter within the broader task.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ALL token holdings for a Solana wallet address'). It lists the return fields (mint address, symbol, name, balance, USD value) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_sol_balance (SOL only) and get_token_price (specific token price).

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks what tokens a wallet holds or wants a general overview of wallet contents.' This provides clear usage context and implicitly excludes siblings (e.g., get_sol_balance for SOL, analyze_wallet_defi_positions for DeFi positions).

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