get_multichain_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it aggregates tokens or native balances, whether it accepts a single wallet address and returns combined valuation, or any rate limits/response specifics. The default 'all supported networks' behavior is implied by schema but not described.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words, no filler. Perfectly concise for a simple read tool.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only minimal description. For a tool that fetches portfolios across multiple chains, the agent needs to know what the response contains (e.g., token balances, USD value, per-chain breakdown) and how to use it. The current description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 'Networks to check (default: all supported)' is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description itself contributes nothing additional.

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 'Get portfolio across multiple chains' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (portfolio), and clarifies the multi-chain scope. It distinguishes itself enough from siblings like get_wallet_portfolio and portfolio_get_summary by emphasizing 'multichain', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related portfolio tools (get_wallet_portfolio, portfolio_get_summary, market_get_wallet_balance), the description doesn't state what makes this tool the right choice, such as needing multiple chain balances or default behavior.

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