get_wallet_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the output fields but does not mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset in schema) or that 'all' may require multiple calls. It also doesn't note that the wallet parameter accepts ENS names, though the schema covers this. It does clarify read-only nature implicitly via 'Get'.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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 lists the return fields, which is essential. It also provides a use case. However, it omits pagination nuances and any caveats about full enumeration, leaving a slight gap for a listing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the wallet address in prose but doesn't describe limit/offset or the ENS-name alternative.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all ENS names owned by a wallet address.' It also details the returned fields (label, tags, expiry, registration date, active listing/offer prices), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ens_names or get_name_details by its wallet-centric scope.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Useful for portfolio analysis and wallet profiling.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, falling short of the full 5 requirement.

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