wallet_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the two traits an agent most needs to plan a call: cost ($0.005 USDC per call) and p99 latency (4000ms), plus the shape of the result (per-asset amount and USD, totals per chain). It does not mention failure/partial-chain behavior or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core value (multi-chain portfolio in one call) before chain detail, then closes with the practical cost/latency facts. The opening sentence is dense and list-heavy but each clause carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by describing chain coverage, per-asset and per-chain output granularity, cost and latency. That is nearly complete for a read-only aggregation tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as unindexed or empty wallets.

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 in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes the address families (EVM, Solana, Bitcoin, Tron) but adds no extra semantics for the address format or the min_usd threshold behavior.

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 resource (wallet portfolio across chains) and verb-like scope (one call, total USD), then enumerates the exact chains and asset types covered per address family. It clearly separates itself from single-chain siblings like evm_balance, btc_address and tron_address by emphasizing one-call multi-chain aggregation.

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?

Explicitly names the situations it serves: 'check a counterparty, a treasury or their own funds before acting.' That gives a clear use context, and 'in one call' implies preference over per-chain tools, but no sibling is named as an alternative or exclusion the way a 5 would require.

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