wallet_get_active

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent, stating 'Get'. It adds the specific output fields including the mode enumeration (private-key, mnemonic, or read-only), which clarifies behavior. However, it does not disclose edge cases like behavior when no active wallet exists, though the low annotation bar makes this acceptable.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the verb, and lists the three output items without waste. It effectively balances brevity with informativeness.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It names all three data fields, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No further details are necessary for this simple getter.

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 schema is empty and the description needs no parameter details. Per baseline for 0 params, this scores 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the currently active wallet', listing the exact data returned (address, chain ID, mode). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wallet_activate (which activates) and wallet_info (likely broader info), giving a distinct, unambiguous purpose.

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 usage when the active wallet's address, chain, or mode is needed, but it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over wallet_info or evm_get_wallet_address, so guidance is only implied.

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