get_personalized_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned content (holdings analysis, news, recommendations) but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, mention error behavior, or address privacy implications of sending a wallet address. The verb 'Get' implicitly suggests a read-only action.

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 concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no superfluous wording. Every phrase adds value by explaining purpose or content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the digest includes and the basis for personalization. It could mention error handling for invalid wallets or clarify relationship to sibling tools, but schema and context signals cover most gaps.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'wallet's on-chain behavior' which maps to wallet_address, but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Language parameter is fully described via enum and default in 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 tool's function: 'Get personalized Web3 digest' based on wallet's on-chain behavior. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the emphasis on 'personalized' and 'wallet's on-chain behavior' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_public_digest.

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 usage context (when a personalized digest is needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_public_digest or get_wallet_profile. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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