Create Customer Custodial Wallet

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

Annotations already state that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive creation operation. The description adds little beyond that: it does not warn that duplicate calls may create multiple wallets, nor does it describe permissions, side effects, or failure behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. However, the Args section largely duplicates the input schema, which already has full parameter descriptions, so it is not maximally economical.

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 simple four-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate for invocation. It still leaves important context gaps around sibling selection, idempotency behavior, and customer/network prerequisites.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the same meanings and notes that external_id is optional, but adds no further semantics such as expected network formats or external_id constraints.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: create a custodial wallet for a customer. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from close siblings like ashar_create_customer_wallet, ashar_create_wallet, or ashar_create_customer_offramp_wallet.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus the other customer-wallet creation tools. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the customer must already exist or what network values are acceptable.

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