get_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses a paid x402 flow at 0.02 USDC and flags that PnL is approximate rather than authoritative. It does not cover failure modes (invalid address, sparse-history wallets) or latency/volume expectations, so it is strong but not complete.

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-loaded with the resource and purpose, then the price, then the returned content — a sensible ordering with no filler prose. The only waste is the cost appearing twice, once in the header and again in the trailing "Cost: 0.02 USDC via x402" sentence.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description essentially serves as the return-value contract, and it enumerates holdings, swaps, PnL, and behavior signals well while also disclosing the payment requirement. Remaining gaps are minor: response shape granularity and behavior on invalid 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%, with both `address` (base58) and `limit` (RPC-dependent range, private RPC allowing more) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter — no defaults, no advice on selecting a limit — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (Solana wallet) and enumerates the outputs: SOL/token holdings with USD values, recent swaps, per-token flows with approximate PnL, and bot-like behavior signals. It is clearly distinct from token-centric siblings such as get_token_report and get_rugcheck, though it never explicitly states that distinction.

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?

"Profile any Solana wallet" implies when to use it, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., base58 address validity), and no routing to alternatives such as get_token_report when only a single token is of interest. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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