Wallet overview from one address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reports at one block, includes an English brief, discovers veNFTs from the official escrow, and explicitly excludes total net worth and APR. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand scope and limitations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by scope, features, and exclusions. It is not overly verbose, though it could be tightened. Each sentence adds information about capabilities or limitations, earning 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 moderate complexity (3 optional params), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it reports, prerequisites, and exclusions. The output schema is present, so return details are not needed. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to use it and to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value: it mentions 'wallet supplied' and 'no veNFT IDs required,' which is already in the schema's wallet description. It does not elaborate on gauges or tokens beyond what the schema provides. No additional semantics beyond schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear action (discover, report) on a specific resource (wallet overview, veNFTs, balances) and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly stating exclusions ('no total net worth or APR') and the convenience of not needing config or manual veNFT IDs. An agent can immediately understand this is a one-block wallet snapshot.

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 states that no wallet config or manual veNFT IDs are needed when a wallet is supplied, indicating when it's appropriate. It also hints at limitations ('Preserve partial and managed-position limits; no total net worth or APR') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Clear context but lacks explicit routing to siblings.

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