check_wallet_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'FREE' which suggests no cost, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or what happens with invalid addresses. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds the 'FREE' qualifier. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (just balance and tier details?), format of response, error conditions, or how the discount tier relates to balance. For a financial tool with no structured output definition, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents the single 'address' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it confirms the address is for checking ASTERPAY token balance but doesn't provide additional context about address format, validation, or examples.

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: checking ASTERPAY token balance and discount tier. It specifies the resource (ASTERPAY token) and includes the 'FREE' qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'check_token_tiers' or 'wallet_score' tools, which appear related.

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. With sibling tools like 'check_token_tiers' and 'wallet_score' present, there's no indication of when this specific ASTERPAY-focused check is appropriate versus more general token or wallet analysis tools.

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