Retrieve high-level portfolio metrics, including total USD value, chain distribution, and capital efficiency score, to assess a wallet's DeFi position.
[Capability: paid_ready; tier: pioneer_plus; API: /api/v1/agent/balances; authority: /api/v1/agent/status] Get high-level portfolio metrics: total USD value, chain distribution, and capital efficiency score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a gating/auth signal via the 'authority: /api/v1/agent/status' and tier/capability tags, which hints that access is entitlement-checked, but it does not disclose rate limits or failure behavior beyond that.
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?
Single sentence of substance is efficient, but the leading bracket block of internal tags (capability, tier, API paths) is cryptic infrastructure metadata that partly crowds out agent-facing guidance. The actual value statement is front-loaded after that block.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable enumeration of returned metrics, which is the main thing needed. It is still incomplete on the address parameter and on how this differs from overlapping sibling read tools.
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% and the sole required parameter 'address' is documented nowhere. The description never mentions the address argument, its format, or whether it is the wallet being summarized, leaving the agent to infer from the regex pattern alone.
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?
States a specific verb and resource and names the three returned metrics (USD value, chain distribution, capital efficiency score), so the purpose is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_chain_breakdown, get_wallet_balances, or optimize_portfolio, which appear to overlap.
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 call this rather than get_chain_breakdown, get_wallet_balances, or optimize_portfolio, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.