list_token_holdings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via the explorer index,' hinting at potential indexing lag but doesn't elaborate on behavior (e.g., whether it returns zero balances, response format, or rate limits). Adequate but not thorough.

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, no wasted words. The most critical information (what it does, scope, network restriction) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by noting what the return includes (e.g., token symbols, balances, decimals) or excluding non-standard tokens.

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 only parameter, address, has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, merely stating it's for an address. It misses the chance to explain input format or constraints.

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 it lists all token balances held by an address, using the explorer index, and is mainnet-only. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_token_balance (single token) and multi_token_balance (multiple specific tokens).

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 'Mainnet only' constraint provides a clear use condition. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the context implies it's for the full token portfolio of an address, distinguishing it from single-token or multi-token queries.

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