Datai MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output includes 'multiple currencies (USD, EUR, AUD, GBP, JPY, CAD, CHF)' and that it provides 'aggregated portfolio valuation', which clarifies the return format and scope. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and output currencies, the second clarifies the aggregated valuation scope. Every phrase adds value (e.g., listing currencies, specifying 'across all assets'), with no redundant or vague language. It's front-loaded with key information.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavioral traits (currency outputs, aggregation), and usage context. Annotations provide safety and idempotency info. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters (wallet address formats and chain enum values). The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of querying 'a wallet on a specific blockchain network', aligning with the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents parameters.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive overall balance'), target resource ('for a wallet on a specific blockchain network'), and scope ('aggregated portfolio valuation across all assets held on the specified chain'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wallet_balances_by_chain' by emphasizing overall/aggregated valuation rather than individual asset balances.

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 usage context by specifying 'on a specific blockchain network' and 'across all assets held on the specified chain', suggesting this tool is for chain-specific aggregated valuation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_overall_balance_all_c' (which might cover multiple chains) or 'get_wallet_balances_by_chain' (which might provide per-asset details). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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