get_aipou_identity

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 read-only nature is structured data. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it never returns private keys, submits transactions, or changes state, which is valuable safety and privacy information for an agent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose and usage context are front-loaded, followed by return contents and explicit non-behaviors. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key return values: wallet address, Ed25519 public key, and fingerprint. Combined with the annotations and the absence of parameters, this is enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it safely.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on what the call returns instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names an exact resource: the MCP installation's public identity with its farming wallet and collector. It also distinguishes the tool's scope by explicitly listing what it returns and what it never does, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling tools like get_aipou_status or get_aipou_contract.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a client needs to display or verify the farming wallet and collector. It does not discuss exclusions or alternatives, but the stated trigger is clear enough for an agent to decide on invocation.

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