get_daily_briefing

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it is composed from existing tools (no new on-chain reads), sub-tool failures degrade gracefully per-section, and two sections are explicitly punted with reasons. No contradictions 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 detailed but well-structured with numbered sections and intra-paragraph organization. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat long. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers details, making it scannable.

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, six sections, conditional formatting), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the scope, failure behavior, returns both structured and narrative formats, and flags future sections. No output schema exists, so the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. However, the tool description adds substantial semantic richness beyond schema – e.g., explaining that wallet drives the EVM portion, tronAddress folds TRX/TRC-20, solanaAddress folds SOL/SPL, and bitcoinAddress has best-effort limits. It also adds contextual nuance like narrative voice tightening for shorter windows.

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 it provides a 'one-paragraph 'what's going on with my portfolio right now' briefing' composed from existing tools. It lists six specific sections and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_portfolio_summary and get_portfolio_diff, making its unique role obvious.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, noting it is distinct from get_portfolio_summary and get_portfolio_diff. It also covers defaults (24h period), sub-tool failure behavior, and explicitly flags two unavailable sections with reasons, giving clear context for when to expect limitations.

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