Wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: holdings are valued using either curve price or DEX price depending on the token, and omitting the address resolves to the server's own trading wallet — a non-obvious default an agent must know.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the default behavior. The second sentence is a fragment, but it is tight and wastes no words.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers what the tool returns, how values are priced, and what happens with no input. Return shape is unspecified, but with no output schema that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so the description must carry the address parameter, and it does: the address is optional and its absence means 'the wallet this server trades with'. That is exactly the semantic an agent needs and cannot get from the bare 'address: string' property.

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 the resource (a wallet) and exactly what is returned: SOL balance plus token holdings with their valuation (curve price or DEX price). This clearly separates it from coin-centric siblings like pump_coin or pump_new_launches, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource — an agent would infer this is the tool for inspecting a wallet's holdings. The no-address default is explained, but there is no explicit 'use this when' framing and no statement of when a different sibling (e.g. pump_coin for a single token) would be the better choice.

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