wallet_profiler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered externally. The description adds genuine behavioural value by disclosing the live-data nature of the response and the four supported chains. It stops short of noting rate limits or freshness/caching behaviour.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler. The resource and chain scope lead, and the return payload follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so exhaustively (balances, nonce, tier classification, contract detection). For a one-parameter, read-only tool of low complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'address' parameter, and the schema already specifies the 0x 40-hex EVM format. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Multi-chain whale & wallet portfolio profiler') and enumerates the exact outputs: USDC/native balances, nonce, wallet tier, and EOA-vs-contract detection. No sibling tool (academic_search, defi_yields, etc.) overlaps this scope, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 stated outputs imply the use case (profiling a wallet address for balance and behavioural signals), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Chains covered are listed, which is helpful context, but selection guidance is left to inference.

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