portfolio_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only nature, no signing needed, behavior without wallet (returns empty), and use of Uniswap V3. This is informative but omits potential rate limits or latency. Still, it covers key behavioral traits well for a simple query.

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 concise sentences. First states core purpose, second adds constraints and edge case behavior. No redundancy, all sentences earn their place.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains the output (total portfolio value in USD) and tool behavior sufficiently. It mentions token scope and fallback case. Minor omission: return format (number) could be explicit, but adequate.

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 has 0 parameters (100% coverage). Baseline is 4 per rules for 0 params. Description adds full meaning by explaining what the tool computes and how (token balances, Uniswap V3 quoting). No further parameter info needed; description compensates completely.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'reads' and resource 'portfolio value in USD for the trade wallet'. It specifies token scope and quoting mechanism. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_balances or mft_price, which could be confused for similar purposes.

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?

Description provides context: it is read-only and works without a wallet. It implies safe usage but does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for more granular data (e.g., get_balances). No explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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