get_idle_capital

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cross-chain scope, which is genuine context, but discloses nothing about what 'idle' means (a threshold? zero-utilization?), result format, or the fact that only EVM-style addresses are accepted; the bracketed capability/tier/endpoint metadata is internal routing detail of limited value to an agent.

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 short, but roughly half of it is a bracketed capability/tier/API-path preamble that precedes the actual purpose statement, so the useful content is not front-loaded. The remaining sentence is efficient and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what the agent gets back (per-chain idle asset list, amounts, whether swap-ready) and where results are sourced from; it doesn't. For a simple read tool with one parameter this is a modest but real gap.

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 0% for the single required 'address' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never says whether this is the wallet to scan, whether it must be EVM-format (implied only by the ^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$ pattern), or which chains are enumerated.

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 names a specific verb ('Locate') and resource ('idle stablecoins or native assets across all supported chains'), so an agent understands the operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as get_wallet_balances, get_portfolio_summary, or find_capital_route, leaving the boundary vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_wallet_balances (which also reports balances) or find_capital_route (which also concerns capital placement). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and the 'idle' qualifier is never operationalized.

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