historical_portfolio_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (time series data) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or that it is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, fitting into a single sentence plus a brief list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates parameters efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter details from the purpose statement.

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?

The tool has four parameters, two with enums, and no output schema. The description mentions it returns time series data but does not explain the structure of the output (e.g., fields like date, value, token). Given the complexity, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full response 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 100%, so the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating required fields and the default for days. It provides no additional context for parameter values or constraints.

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 renders a daily portfolio balance for an address broken down by token. The verb 'render' and resource 'portfolio balance' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like historical_token_balances by focusing on portfolio value.

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 lists required and optional parameters, which provides basic usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like historical_token_balances or historical_token_prices, nor does it mention constraints or prerequisites.

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