market_get_wallet_balances_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read operation 'Get balance data' without detailing response format, error handling, or network coverage behavior beyond the schema. This lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no other safety context.

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 states exactly what the tool does. No unnecessary words or repetition, well front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with only two parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. The schema covers parameter details, and the description clarifies the multi-network scope. However, without an output schema, a brief mention of the return format or network handling would enhance completeness.

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% (both 'address' and 'networks' are described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the 'all' default scope. 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'balance data' with an explicit scope 'across all supported networks', which distinguishes it from the singular-focus sibling 'market_get_wallet_balance'. The name and description align perfectly.

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 the tool is for multi-network balance queries via 'all supported networks', and the optional 'networks' parameter suggests filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other tools like 'market_get_wallet_balance' or provide exclusions.

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