wealth_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-fetches holdings, values positions, flags stablecoin% and concentration, and returns a unified risk score and narrative. It implies a read-only, analytical behavior but lacks explicit statements about destructive actions, authentication needs, or data freshness. Additional detail on input validation or network dependencies would improve transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Cross-asset portfolio risk analyzer.') followed by concise details on inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and outputs. It explains what the tool does, what it accepts, and what it returns (risk score 1-10, AI narrative, flags). No critical gaps are evident.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'wallet' is a wallet address, 'tickers' are stock tickers, and 'contracts' are token contracts. This adds meaning beyond the property names, but does not specify formats (e.g., comma-separated) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as a cross-asset portfolio risk analyzer with specific inputs (wallet, tickers, contracts) and outputs (risk score, AI narrative, flags). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'portfolio_risk' or 'defi_risk' by emphasizing its cross-asset scope and on-chain/off-chain integration.

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 explains that the tool accepts wallet addresses (auto-fetching Base on-chain holdings) plus stock tickers and token contracts. It implies usage for cross-asset risk analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as 'portfolio_risk' or 'wallet_risk', nor does it mention limitations (e.g., only Base network for wallet).

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