list_featuresList documented Aperture Wallet features with canonical article links and safety notes. Optionally filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional exact feature category such as security, recovery, transactions, bitcoin, or utility. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the output includes 'canonical article links and safety notes,' which is beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, compact sentence that states the purpose and the optional filter. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core function.
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?
The tool has a simple schema with one optional parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (links and safety notes) and the optional filter, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not mention how results are ordered or paginated, but these are minor gaps for such a simple list 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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, category, is clearly described with examples of valid values. The description's mention of filtering by category reinforces the schema without adding much new information, but the coverage is 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: list documented Aperture Wallet features, with canonical article links and safety notes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search or fetch, but the mention of 'canonical article links and safety notes' gives some differentiation.
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 an optional filter by category, which offers some usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or fetch, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource types (product, security, features, articles, networks, release, screens, entry points), with get_/list_ pairs clearly separating single-item retrieval from collection listing. The only mild ambiguity is between get_app_screen and list_app_entry_points, since both describe UI navigation surfaces, though their descriptions keep screen semantics vs entry-point catalogs separate.
The dominant get_<singular> and list_<plural> pattern is clear and predictable for 10 of 12 tools. 'search' and 'fetch' break the noun-oriented pattern and are less descriptive of their distinct roles, but they are common enough verbs that the overall set remains readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a wallet knowledge base: each get tool corresponds to a distinct knowledge category and list tools cover discoverability. No tool feels redundant, and the count is squarely in the appropriate range.
The surface covers the major knowledge domains an agent needs: product identity, security model, features, articles, supported networks, release info, app screens, and entry points, plus search/fetch for open-ended lookup. Minor asymmetries exist (e.g., get_app_screen has no listing counterpart, and list_app_entry_points has no single-item get), but these are workable through search.