fetchTokensOwnedByMultichainAddresses

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a basic operation with no mention of pagination, rate limits, permissions, or return format. The agent is left uncertain about what the response contains beyond 'tokens owned'.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, directly stating the tool's function without any extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 simple query tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description does not elaborate on the expected output or any constraints (e.g., maximum addresses, blockchain support). The agent lacks sufficient detail to anticipate the tool's full behavior.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents the 'addresses' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the high-level purpose, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Get all ERC-20 tokens owned by wallet addresses across multiple chains' clearly states the action (get), the resource (ERC-20 tokens), the ownership condition, and the multi-chain scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetchNftsOwnedByMultichainAddresses (NFTs) and fetchTokenPriceByAddress (prices).

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 use for fetching ERC-20 token balances but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetchNftsOwnedByMultichainAddresses for NFTs. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and purpose alone.

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