profile_wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a 0.008 USDC x402 micropayment on Base is required per call, and results may be partial. It does not describe pagination or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, tightly front-loaded: capability first, then limitations, then cost. No filler and every clause carries actionable 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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data (balances, transaction counts) and its partial-coverage nature. It omits any response format or error behavior, but for a simple 2-parameter read tool the description is close to complete.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema and a 3 is the baseline. The description adds little parameter-level detail and even introduces mild ambiguity: the address param says 'Ethereum or Base', while the chain param's examples include arbitrum and polygon.

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 and resource ('Read priced public wallet balances and available transaction counts') and names the data source (Blockscout), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_crypto_prices, scan_token, and track_whales. The explicit coverage caveats further sharpen the boundary of what this tool returns.

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 gives clear when-not guidance by naming what is unavailable (DeFi positions, PnL, risk score), which steers the agent away for those needs, and discloses the per-call cost as a selection factor. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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