Datai MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('across ALL supported blockchain networks') and output details ('multiple currencies...for comprehensive wealth tracking'), which enhances understanding beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in a second sentence. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and output without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 complexity (multi-network balance retrieval), annotations provide good behavioral coverage, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail return values (e.g., structure of balance data). It is mostly complete but could benefit from more output information.

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%, providing full details on the 'wallet' parameter (Ethereum or Solana address formats). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'wallet' in context but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get overall balance') and resources ('wallet across ALL supported blockchain networks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing 'ALL' networks versus the sibling 'get_overall_balance_by_chain' which is chain-specific. It specifies the output includes multiple currencies for portfolio valuation.

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 implicitly suggests usage for comprehensive wealth tracking across all networks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'get_overall_balance_by_chain' or other DeFi-focused tools. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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