get_wallet_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists output contents ('native balance and common token balances'). It does not explain what 'comprehensive' means, whether valuations are included, how 'common tokens' are determined, or any response structure. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and includes relevant specifics, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral info. It lacks details on return format, supported networks, and edge cases, which is insufficient for a 'comprehensive' summary tool. The agent is left with gaps in understanding what the output will look like.

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' and 'network' documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 action ('Get a comprehensive portfolio summary') and indicates the resource ('a wallet') and key contents ('native balance and common token balances'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_portfolio_overview or get_multichain_portfolio, which appear similar.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the network parameter's default, scope of wallet coverage, or any exclusions. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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