obol_wallet_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a concrete behavior: cost of $0.01 USDC, which is valuable. It also implies a read-only operation by stating what it returns. However, it does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or any side effects beyond cost, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a cost clause. It front-loads the purpose and returns the key detail immediately. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells what data will be returned (SOL balance, token count, total value), implicitly defining the response. It does not mention response format, but given the simplicity, that is a minor omission.

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?

The single parameter 'address' has 100% schema description coverage ('Solana wallet address'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify address format or validation, but the schema already provides sufficient context.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Solana wallet overview') and explicitly lists the returned data: SOL balance, token count, total value. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like activity or PnL by focusing on a summary snapshot.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus wallet_portfolio, wallet_activity, or other siblings. It describes the action but not the context, like 'use for a quick financial snapshot' or 'when you need total value and token count'. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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