track_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Price: $0.75,' which hints at a paid service, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with financial implications and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, lists args and returns in clear sections, and ends with pricing. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Price' line could be integrated more smoothly. There's minimal waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (financial analytics with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and pricing, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data sources) and doesn't fully detail parameter usage. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the burden on the description.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'wallet_address: The wallet address to track' and 'chains: List of chains to include in portfolio.' This clarifies the purpose of each parameter but lacks details like format examples, chain name conventions, or default behavior when chains is null. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive portfolio tracking and analytics.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'portfolio tracking and analytics,' making it clear this is a retrieval/analysis tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_multi_chain_balance' or 'optimize_portfolio,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_multi_chain_balance' (which might provide balance data) or 'optimize_portfolio' (which might involve recommendations), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit context is the need for a wallet address and optional chains.

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