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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Show' implies a non-mutating read and 'connected BRIJ wallet' hints that a wallet must already be connected, but the description never explicitly states read-only behavior, whether auth/connection is required, or what happens when no wallet is connected.

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 that states the action, the returned data, and the timing context with no filler. Nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is no input contract to clarify. The description supplies all the remaining context (what is shown, in what denomination, and when to call it) needed to invoke correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema (additionalProperties: false, empty object) is trivially complete.

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?

Names a specific verb (Show) and precise resources (connected BRIJ wallet address and USDC balance), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling payment-flow tools (prepare_paid_api_call, call_paid_api_endpoint) because it is a pure inspection call.

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 phrase 'before or after paid API calls' gives clear situational context for when to reach for this tool relative to the paid-call siblings. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative, so it is strong context but not a full when/when-not rule set.

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