Get Watchlist net worth

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by revealing that banks, cash, and property are manual entries and that live crypto USD balances are null on the list API. This prepares the agent for null values and the nature of the underlying data.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data source, and the second provides essential caveats about manual entries and null crypto balances. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation set, and an output schema present, the description is complete for practical use. It explains the two most important behavioral caveats — manual entries and null crypto values — that an agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers input semantics. The description is not required to add parameter details, and it doesn't attempt to invent any — the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Watchlist net worth'), and clarifies that it aggregates from existing list APIs. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from invoice and source siblings like get_invoice and list_sources.

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 this is the tool to call when the agent needs a watchlist net worth figure, and it gives caveats about manual entries and crypto nulls. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_sources, nor does it state when not to use it.

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