get_wallet_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns balance, tokens, and labels, and mentions 'Starter tier' (which hints at limitations). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that convey the core functionality and use case without extraneous information. Every part adds value.

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 the lack of output schema, the description reasonably covers return values (balance, tokens, labels). The mention of 'Starter tier' is somewhat ambiguous, and additional details about result structure or pagination would improve completeness, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema describes the 'address' parameter with a clear pattern (EVM or Solana), but the 'chain' parameter has no description. The tool description mentions ERC-20/SPL tokens, which implies Ethereum and Solana chains, but it does not explicitly link to the 'chain' parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 that the tool provides a wallet summary including native balance, ERC-20/SPL token list, and labels, and explicitly mentions its use for wallet research and clustering. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like transactions or token holders.

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 explains when to use the tool ('for wallet research and clustering') and implies it is for getting a high-level overview. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the distinct purpose among siblings, the guidance is clear enough.

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