get_wallet_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide some useful behavioral context: it is a read operation ('fetches'), limited to open positions, and sourced directly from the blockchain. However, it does not disclose error behavior, data format, pagination, or whether network conditions or blockchain provider requirements apply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, scope, and data source with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and states what the result represents ('open Citadelle options positions'). However, since there is no output schema, return shape and field details are left unspecified, though this is a minor gap for such a simple getter.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter with 'The EVM wallet address (0x string)', so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'specific EVM wallet' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic details 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 states a specific action ('fetches'), a concrete resource ('open Citadelle options positions'), and an explicit scope ('for a specific EVM wallet'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are about market liquidity and trade link generation.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs open options positions for a specific EVM wallet, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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