get_wallet_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation and mentions one return field, but does not confirm read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is extremely terse and could benefit from a bit more context, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 getter with two required parameters and no output schema, the description states the core purpose and one return field. It fails to explain what 'wallet information' includes or the response structure, and provides no behavioral context. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 both walletAddress and chain fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (wallet information), and adds scope (native token balance). It does not distinguish from siblings like get_balances or get_portfolio, leaving ambiguity about which tool to choose for wallet data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The description does not clarify when this tool is preferable over get_balances, get_portfolio, or get_wallet_performance.

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