Get wallet portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: counts and totals always cover the whole wallet even though the property list is paged. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid addresses, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid added context.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the contents; the paging/totals caveat is placed immediately after the paged item it qualifies.

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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of enumerating the returned sections and explaining the paging/total relationship. It leaves minor gaps, such as behavior for a non-existent or non-contract address, but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 limit and offset are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the results are paged and, importantly, that pagination does not shrink the counts/totals — semantics an agent could not infer from the parameter descriptions alone.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a wallet's Fabrica portfolio) and enumerates exactly what the portfolio contains: owned properties, active loans (borrower or lender), marketplace orders, credit history, and total value. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_property, search_properties, and get_lending_market.

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 makes the scope (one wallet, keyed by address) clear, which implicitly tells the agent to use it for wallet-level aggregation rather than per-property lookups. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_lending_market or get_activity.

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