get_wallet_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that USD prices are live (i.e., time-varying) and the '[Capability: paid_ready; tier: pioneer_plus ...]' prefix hints at a paid capability gate, but it never states auth/payment requirements or rate limits plainly, and the bracket metadata is cryptic rather than explanatory.

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?

Only two substantive sentences, which is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the leading bracketed metadata block ('Capability: paid_ready; authority: /api/v1/agent/status') is internal jargon that consumes the highest-attention position without being self-explanatory.

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 and no annotations covering parameter behavior, the description is partially complete: it tells the agent what comes back (balances + live USD prices) but leaves the 'chains' filter entirely undefined. An agent could call it with just the address, but not confidently use the multi-chain filtering it advertises.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does not. The optional 'chains' parameter is never explained — no format, no delimiter, no default, no enumeration of supported chains — even though the phrase 'multi-chain' gestures at it; 'address' semantics are only inferable from the schema's regex pattern.

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: 'Get multi-chain token portfolio for an EVM wallet', plus the return content ('balances with live USD prices'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from lookalike siblings such as get_portfolio_summary or get_chain_breakdown, which keeps it below 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this overlaps with get_portfolio_summary, get_chain_breakdown, or get_idle_capital, or which to call first.

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