holdings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the read is live from chain and, importantly, defines failure semantics ('if a read fails the answer says it is incomplete; it never reports an empty wallet it could not read'). It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit or pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then failure behavior, then the sibling routing. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return contents (native plus SPL/Token-2022 with symbols), freshness (live), and error semantics, plus a routing note. The remaining gap is the wallet parameter's expected format.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required 'wallet' parameter is never described in the text. The description implies the wallet is an on-chain X1 wallet, but does not state the expected format (address vs. name/handle), leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 resource and scope: every token balance of ONE X1 wallet, read live from the X1 chain, covering native XNT plus SPL and Token-2022 accounts with symbols. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from wallet_profile by pointing at that sibling for trading history.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For trading history use wallet_profile.' That gives a clear when-to-use-elsewhere condition, though no other prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. multi-wallet batching) are mentioned.

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