provision_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states one wallet per trader, returns the existing claim link if already provisioned, and warns 'never mint two.' It also describes the expected follow-up ('poll claim_status until backed_up is true'). It stops short of disclosing auth/permission needs or error behavior, but the key idempotency and next-step behavior are covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, idempotency, human-facing instructions, and follow-up. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 provisioning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, proactive usage, idempotency, return value handling, and the required follow-up polling. It is nearly complete, though it omits any mention of the optional trader_id parameter or permission/auth considerations.

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%, so the single trader_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not mention trader_id at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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: 'Provision the human's trading wallet and get their claim link.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as claim_status or get_started; sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear proactive trigger: 'Call this on your own as soon as you are connected — the human should never have to ask for it.' It also notes the idempotent case when a wallet already exists. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to call it beyond the idempotency note.

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