refinore-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves balances but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with wallet data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, tokens, target) without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only status, error cases) and does not explain return values or structure, which is critical for a tool that fetches multiple token balances. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'wallet_address' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying it's for a 'Solana wallet address', but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('wallet token balances'), specifying the exact tokens included (SOL, ORE, USDC, stORE, SKR) and the target (Solana wallet address). It distinguishes from siblings like get_account_info or get_staking_info by focusing specifically on token balances rather than general account data or staking details.

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 when token balances for a Solana wallet are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_info (which might include broader account data) or get_staking_info (which might focus on staked tokens). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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