get_wallet_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses read-like behavior, direct-only balances, and a point-in-time mainnet slot. It omits read-only/side-effect confirmation, the slot-selection rule, and return format details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the action, token set, scope, and address type efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers the lone wallet input, but with no output schema the description should clarify return shape and how the 'one mainnet slot' is chosen. These are meaningful gaps for an agent interpreting results.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it as a base58 public Solana wallet address with no wallet connection required. The description adds 'any public address' but little semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Find') and resource ('direct SPL balances of hyUSD, xSOL and eHYUSD') scoped to a public address. This clearly distinguishes it from the protocol/pool-state siblings and explain_mechanism.

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 scope implies it is for direct wallet holdings rather than protocol or pool state, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over get_earn_pool_state or explain_mechanism. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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