Get Full Portfolio

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description adds critical operational context: it costs 1 credit per address, aggregates across 20+ blockchains, and returns specific data types (token balances, values, protocol positions). This enriches the agent's understanding of cost and scope without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return data, and the third discloses cost. All sentences earn their place and the content is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter schema, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its cost model. It is complete for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, covering all essential operational aspects.

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 already describes the 'addresses' parameter thoroughly (EVM/Solana formats, max 10). The description adds the meaningful detail that cost scales per address, which is not in the schema, providing additional semantic value beyond the high schema coverage.

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 returns a complete portfolio including wallet holdings and DeFi protocol positions across 20+ blockchains, with specific outputs like token balances and values. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings such as octav_get_wallet, which likely focuses only on wallet holdings.

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 a comprehensive portfolio view across many blockchains, with no explicit exclusions or named alternatives. However, the phrase 'complete portfolio' and mention of DeFi positions provides clear context that this is broader than sibling tools, and the credit cost per address offers practical guidance.

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