get_wallet_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is returned (price, decimals, verification status), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for unknown policy IDs, or read-only status.

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, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and the return fields immediately after. Efficient overall, though the closing valuation note is soft rather than actionable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately signals the return payload (metadata, price, decimals, verification status). It stops short of covering how the two parameters interact or any operational constraints an agent might need.

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 already documented by the schema. The description only restates the 'list of policy IDs' mapping to policyIdList and never mentions the optional hexList parameter or how it pairs with the IDs, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get token details for a list of policy IDs') and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly identifies the resource as tokens keyed by policy IDs, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling lookups like search_tokens or get_token_pools.

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 only usage hint is 'Useful for portfolio valuation,' which implies a scenario but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the many sibling token tools (search_tokens, get_trending_tokens, get_token_pools).

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