Get EVM Portfolio

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context by stating the result includes the native token, all ERC-20 holdings, USD values, and by providing an explicit JSON return shape. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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 organized into clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, examples) and front-loads the core behavior. The Args list somewhat repeats schema information and the Returns block is long, but it compensates for the lack of an output schema and remains scannable.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it states the exact data returned, provides the full response shape, gives example chainIds with natural-language triggers, and names the alternative tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 already documents chainId with all eight const values and per-chain descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical natural-language mapping examples ('What tokens do I have on BSC?' -> 56) and shorthand common values, though it omits Scroll and Lisk from its list.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Returns the full token portfolio') with a precise scope ('EVM wallet on a specific chain') and content ('native token and all ERC-20 holdings with USD values'). This clearly differentiates it from balance-only tools like monei_get_wallet and from Solana-focused siblings.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants a detailed breakdown of their crypto holdings on a specific EVM network.' It also names the alternative directly: 'For a simple balance check, use monei_get_wallet instead.' This direct routing leaves no ambiguity between siblings.

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