Wallet holdings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it uses two independent readers, compares counts, and explicitly states it never asks for keys and cannot move anything. This enriches the agent's understanding of safety and scope, though it could mention pagination or rate limits.

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 but packs substantial information: purpose, dual-source behavior, question coverage, and a read-only guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main function and uses efficient phrasing, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 read-only tool with a simple two-parameter schema, the description covers the core semantics, return scope, and safety profile. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explaining what the result represents (holdings from two readers with a comparison), so the agent can anticipate the response shape reasonably well.

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%, so both parameters are documented with clear descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 states a specific verb ('get') with a clear resource ('wallet holdings') and explicitly answers common questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the dual-reader approach and coverage of unlisted/compressed assets, which is not obvious from the name alone.

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?

It clearly indicates the intended use case ('what does this wallet hold') and sets expectations about read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when to prefer get_wallet_profile or get_wallet_activity), leaving some inference to the agent.

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