wallet_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation, and the description adds valuable context by stating it does not expose secrets. It also discloses that the tool covers storage security posture and current wallet state, giving a clearer behavioral profile than the annotation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and includes a meaningful caveat. Every element contributes value with no redundancy or filler, achieving high conciseness for a zero-parameter getter.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides a complete high-level overview of what the tool returns (metadata, security posture, state). It could mention whether an active wallet is required or how the output is structured, but for this simple tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. Per the calibration baseline, a tool with 0 parameters earns a 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet backend metadata, storage security posture, and current wallet state'). It also adds a scope restriction ('without exposing secrets'), which distinguishes it from wallet action tools like wallet_activate or wallet_delete. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 this tool is used to retrieve wallet information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over similar wallet-related tools like wallet_get_active or evm_get_balance. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the guidance is present only by implication.

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