get_wallet_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates the read-only nature by stating it 'builds a report' implying data retrieval. It lists the specific data points returned (balances, transaction count, wallet age, safety status), making the tool's behavior clear. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements or data freshness.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Build a full wallet intelligence report') and lists components without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (balances, USD values, transaction count, wallet age, safety status). However, it does not clarify the default network behavior or address potential edge cases. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a tool with two parameters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the two parameters ('address' and 'network'), so the schema already documents them adequately. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on output details rather than parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Build a full wallet intelligence report' with specific outputs including balances, USD values, transaction count, wallet age, and safety status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_balances' and 'check_wallet_safety' which are more focused.

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 implies usage for obtaining a comprehensive wallet profile but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like 'get_wallet_balances' or 'check_wallet_safety'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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