get_wallet_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantive behavior: the native balance is approximate, the data is sourced from two distinct endpoints (/v1/user and /v1/portfolio), and a session is mandatory. The one unexplained behavior is why a session is required for a read-only summary, but overall this is well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

A single dense sentence with the returned fields front-loaded, followed by the session requirement and the address-only exclusion. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated or padded.

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 does the work of naming the return fields (address, approximate native balance, token count, USD total), which is exactly what an agent needs. It covers the mandatory session requirement and the key limitation; a brief note on staleness or refresh behavior would make it complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's note that accountRef carries the session and that walletAddress alone cannot be used does add a bit of semantic value, but it doesn't explain the chain parameter or the data/apiKey/sessionPrivateKey alternatives beyond what the schema already states.

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?

It names the specific resource — a summary of the managed GDEX wallet on one chain — and enumerates exactly what is returned (managed address, native balance, token count, USD total), which tells an agent what it gets without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_balances, get_portfolio or get_trading_funds, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides one real usage constraint — a session/accountRef is required and there is no address-only read — which is genuinely useful gating information. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_balances, get_portfolio or get_account_state, so the agent must infer the choice among overlapping read tools.

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