get_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields, what is intentionally excluded (nftoken_id, image, mint time), and the requirement for an XRPL r... address. While it doesn't mention error handling or pagination, it is a read-only listing tool and this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then usage triggers, return fields, exclusions, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The truncated 'Requires an XRPL r... address' appears to be a display artifact, not a structural flaw.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields (TLD, length, primary flag, subname flag, quick-action URLs) and what is not included. With the schema fully documenting all parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with all four parameters fully documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does reinforce that address is required, but that is already in the schema.

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 verb+resource: 'List all XRPL domains owned by a wallet address.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_domain_profile by explicitly noting what is excluded and pointing to that tool for those details.

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?

It provides explicit usage triggers with example user phrasings ('what domains do I own?', 'show me my domains') and directs to get_domain_profile for single domain lookups. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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