get_portfolio_summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds rich behavior context: fan-out across chains, address folding for non-EVM ecosystems, response structure with totalUsd and breakdown, error degradation via coverage, and mention of follow-up phases (Solana staking). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long due to complexity but is efficiently structured: core purpose in first sentence, then ecosystem-specific details, then usage guidance. Every sentence provides unique value, no redundancy. Properly 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?

No output schema, but the description adequately describes return fields: totalUsd, breakdown by category/chain, raw per-protocol arrays, specific fields like tronUsd, tronStakingUsd, coverage. Also handles edge cases (multi-wallet, single wallet, error degradation). Complete given the complexity.

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 covers all 11 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining interdependencies (mutual exclusions between single/multi address params, behavior with single wallet vs wallets array, constraints like max items for tronAddresses (10) and solanaAddresses (5)). Slightly richer than baseline 3.

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 does 'one-shot cross-chain portfolio aggregation' and lists the specific protocols and assets included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the default for portfolio value questions, contrasting with per-protocol readers.

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?

Explicitly says 'Default tool for 'what's in my portfolio?' / 'total value' questions; prefer it over calling each per-protocol reader separately.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and warns against unnecessary multiple calls, fitting the usage guidelines dimension perfectly.

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