get_tokens_by_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses pagination support with instructions on using the 'next_call', specifies that balance is provided 'as is, without adjusting by decimals', and mentions enriched metadata and market data. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: details on return data, use cases, and pagination instructions. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys necessary information in four concise sentences.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing return values: 'contract details (name, symbol, decimals), market metrics (exchange rate, market cap, volume), holders count, and actual balance'. It also covers pagination behavior. However, it lacks error handling or rate limit information, which could be useful given the openWorldHint annotation.

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 schema fully documents parameters (chain_id, address, cursor). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints for 'address' or 'chain_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get' and resource 'ERC20 token holdings for an address' with specific scope 'comprehensive...with enriched metadata and market data'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nft_tokens_by_address' (NFTs vs ERC20) and 'get_token_transfers_by_address' (transfers vs holdings).

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 explicitly states use cases: 'portfolio analysis, wallet auditing, and DeFi position tracking', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'nft_tokens_by_address' for NFTs instead of ERC20 tokens.

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