evm_getwallettokenbalancesprice

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 mentions behavioral aspects like returning metadata, logos, spam status, and filtering options, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key features in the first sentence, followed by additional options. It uses two sentences efficiently with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly grouping related filtering options.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose and filtering features but lacks details on output format, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output schema, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering options like excluding spam, low-liquidity, and inactive tokens, which map to parameters like 'exclude_spam' and 'min_pair_side_liquidity_usd', but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers.

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 specific action ('Fetch'), resource ('ERC20 and native token balances for a given wallet address'), and includes key features like USD prices and metadata. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'evm_getnativebalancesforaddresses' (native only) or 'evm_getfilteredtokens' (general token filtering) by emphasizing comprehensive wallet balance retrieval with pricing.

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 retrieving wallet balances with pricing and filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evm_getwalletnetworth' (net worth focus) or 'evm_getwalletstats' (statistical overview). It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks clear guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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