get_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a safe read and it discloses the returned payload (token balances with USD values and perp positions), but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. A 3 reflects adequate but incomplete behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the em-dash clause enumerates returned data without waste. Every phrase earns 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return payload (token balances with USD values and perp positions). For a low-complexity, two-parameter read tool whose schema already documents inputs, this is nearly complete; only minor omissions like chain-filter behavior and auth context remain.

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 both parameters (walletAddress and optional chain filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'for a wallet' and implying cross-chain scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb 'Fetch' + resource 'full cross-chain portfolio for a wallet' and enumerates contents, distinguishing it from narrower siblings like get_balances or get_perp_positions. An agent can identify it as the aggregate portfolio view without opening the schema.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or named alternatives are given, but the phrase 'full cross-chain portfolio' implies the appropriate use case: obtaining a complete overview rather than a single-chain or position-specific query. This falls under implied usage, not explicit routing.

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