Get Portfolio Balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' signals a read, and the disclosure that results include tokens and DeFi positions adds useful scope information, but it omits any note on auth requirements, data freshness, or return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the action, resource, and target options in one pass with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a low-risk read tool with fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the agent to infer how this differs from the many other balance-listing siblings and what the response contains.

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 all five optional parameters (from, limit, address, includeDefi, minValueUsd) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of DeFi positions loosely maps to includeDefi but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (WalletChan portfolio balances) and scopes the output to tokens and DeFi positions. It is distinguishable from single-balance siblings like agent_eoa_get_balance, but it never names an alternative to clarify the boundary.

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 notes it works 'for an address or the connected WalletChan account', which loosely implies a targeting choice, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to veil_get_balances, veil_x402_payer_balances, or agent_eoa_get_balance.

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