wallet_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency. It discloses the use of 'current floor prices' and output in SOL, but does not mention limitations (e.g., floor prices may not reflect actual market value) or potential side effects. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with only two sentences, achieves front-loading of purpose and output, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one input, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, input, and output format (breakdown by collection and grand total in SOL). It lacks explicit mention of the output structure, but the context is mostly 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address' with description 'Solana wallet address (base58)'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond confirming it's a Solana wallet. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Estimate the total NFT portfolio value for a Solana wallet using current floor prices.' It specifies the resource ('total NFT portfolio value') and action ('estimate') and distinguishes from siblings like nft_floor (specific collection floor) and wallet_nfts (list NFTs).

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 implies usage for portfolio valuation but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, resulting in slightly incomplete guidance.

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