TokenOS Wallet Inspector

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait by calling the risk score 'heuristic,' signaling it is an approximation rather than a verdict, but says nothing about data freshness, caching, rate limits, or cost.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the full return inventory, with zero filler. The enumerated field list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will get back.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents and does so comprehensively across authority, metadata, holders, and score. Minor gaps remain around data freshness and how the concentration/risk values are computed or scaled.

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% for the single 'mint' parameter, so the schema already supplies base58 format and meaning. The description adds no syntax, network, or validation detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and an enumerated set of outputs for a clearly bounded resource: a token mint. That resource is unambiguous against the siblings explain_transaction and inspect_wallet, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on alternatives. 'Heuristic rug-risk score' implies due-diligence usage, but the agent must infer that entirely from the noun phrase rather than from any stated condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what the operation returns (status, fee, programs invoked, balance deltas, last log lines) and implies log truncation. It stops short of covering error cases (invalid/unknown signature) or rate limits.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists the payoff fields. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the decoded fields, which is strong for such a simple read-only tool. It leaves error/edge behavior (bad signature, non-existent tx) unstated, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already specifying 'Transaction signature (base58)'. The description's 'Decode a transaction signature' adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics applies.

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 ('Decode') and resource ('transaction signature') and enumerates the returned fields (status, fee, programs, balance changes, log lines), which makes the scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings check_token/inspect_wallet, but the resource is distinct enough to separate them.

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 implies the trigger (you have a signature and want it decoded) but offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or routing against check_token or inspect_wallet. Comparable to the MID calibration example, which scored 2 for lacking when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the output is bounded to the 10 most recent transactions and includes USD valuation and a tracked total, which tells the agent what to expect from a call. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, truncation beyond the transaction cap, or behavior on invalid/empty addresses.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned payload, with zero filler. Every clause carries content an agent needs (balance, holdings, USD values, total, transaction cap).

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating the four output components. It omits error behavior (invalid address, empty wallet) and whether the 10-transaction list is paginable, which keeps it just short of fully complete for a read-only inspection tool.

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% and the single parameter (base58 address) is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the resource as a 'Solana wallet address' but adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (Return) and resource (SOL balance, token holdings, transactions for a Solana wallet address) and enumerates the payload precisely. It is unmistakable what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the siblings check_token or explain_transaction, which cover adjacent ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. With siblings like check_token (token-level detail) and explain_transaction (single-tx detail) present, the absence of any 'use this for a full wallet overview' framing leaves selection to inference from the name alone.

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