get_nft_portfolio

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond annotations: multi-chain fan-out with error isolation via Promise.allSettled, the meaning of totalFloorUsd as an upper-bound caveat, and per-collection aggregation. Annotations already declare read-only, so the description adds value on error handling and value interpretation.

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 overly verbose, including issue numbers, follow-ups, and deferred features that are not essential for tool usage. Key information is front-loaded but buried in technical details. It could be significantly shortened without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-chain, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the output shape (per-collection rows, coverage flags, notes), error behavior, and parameter constraints. Missing explicit output field list, but still highly informative.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds substantial context: explains the aggregation logic, optional filters (minFloorEth, collections), and their effects. It also mentions sources (Reservoir, Helius) and how filters behave across chains. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 lists NFT collections a wallet owns across EVM chains and/or Solana, with floor prices and total floor value. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (NFT collections), distinguishing it from siblings like get_nft_collection and get_nft_history.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: for portfolio overview across multiple chains. It mentions required parameters (at least one wallet), warns about limitations (Solana floor pricing deferred), and notes that signing actions are handled separately. It could explicitly compare to similar tools, but the context is adequate.

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