Get wallet and tier status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant beyond-annotation context: it requires the 'finance' scope, explains how the effective tier is computed, and explicitly reassures that no tool on the server can move money. This adds operational and safety details not available in annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value (balance, credit, tier signals, operation flags, scope requirement, safety note). It is dense but not verbose, effectively using structure to convey a complete picture.

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 a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is exceptionally complete: it states what data is returned, how tier is derived, what flags are included, and the required scope. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by detailing what data is returned and the prerequisites, fully covering the no-parameter case without needing parameter-level explanations.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'Read-only wallet snapshot' and enumerates its contents (DAI balance, USD credit, effective tier with derivation signals, in-flight operation flags). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_wallet_history (historical view) and get_token_price (price lookup). Thus it meets the bar for specific verb+resource+scope.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read-only status snapshot, implying current-state usage rather than historical queries, which is left to get_wallet_history. It also mentions the opt-in 'finance' scope prerequisite, providing context for when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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