Get Wallet Holdings

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns token balances and values across chains, excludes DeFi, and costs 1 credit per address. This goes beyond the structured annotations, providing operational cost and scope 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds cost context. No filler or redundant text; every word contributes.

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 tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return content, and cost. It does not detail the return structure (e.g., token symbols, chain identifiers), but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's relative simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'addresses' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a cost-per-address semantic ('Costs 1 credit per address'), which clarifies how the array parameter is consumed and incurrs fees. This goes beyond the schema's format description.

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's function: 'Get wallet holdings only (excludes DeFi protocols). Returns token balances and values across all chains.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource 'wallet holdings' is well-defined, and the exclusion of DeFi protocols distinguishes it from siblings like octav_get_portfolio.

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 when to use this tool by explicitly stating 'only (excludes DeFi protocols)', signaling that it should be used for wallet token balances when DeFi positions are not needed. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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