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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavior: the wallet is usable immediately in both live and test mode, addresses are validated strictly on format/checksum/network and token contracts are rejected, and the returned first_address should be surfaced for merchant confirmation. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on a duplicate or invalid registration, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then type routing, then safety caveat — the ordering matches how an agent would plan the call. It is dense with long parenthetical sentences and the trailing signed-message verification sentence is somewhat tangential, but nothing is pure padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with a nested metadata object, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical path and one return field (first_address) but leaves optional parameters and the full response shape unaddressed. Adequate for the happy path, incomplete as a complete specification.

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 45% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important ones: the type branching, the xpub-vs-address requirement, and the chain pairing. It says nothing about label, enabled, metadata, assets, start_index, address_type or derivation_path, leaving half the surface to the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Register a receiving wallet the merchant controls') and immediately splits the tool into its two operating modes, xpub for bitcoin vs address for EVM/Solana/Tron chains. An agent can tell exactly what this creates and which mode applies without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller: use type=xpub for bitcoin, type=address for the ten listed chains, and 'Never pass a private key or seed phrase' closes off a plausible failure mode. It also notes verification is optional and never required, preventing unnecessary extra calls. It does not name a sibling (e.g. list_wallets or list_assets) as the alternative flow, so it falls short of a 5.

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