Create Customer Blockchain Wallet

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety bar is lower. The description only adds 'Returns the created wallet'; it says nothing about non-idempotency risk (retries may duplicate wallets) or any validation/permission behavior, which would be genuinely useful for a create operation.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the following Args block is pure duplication of the input schema and earns no place. The 'Returns the created wallet' line is a useful closer, but the middle section wastes space.

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 non-idempotent creation tool with an untyped nested payload and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves the caller guessing what to put in `body` and what a duplicate-call would do. The one sentence about the return value is the only real added context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's Args block merely restates the schema text verbatim ('the customer id' / 'the blockchain wallet payload') and adds zero meaning. Critically, `body` is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties: {} — the description is the only place the required payload fields (chain, address, label, etc.) could be explained, and it omits them entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a blockchain wallet to a customer'), which is clear enough to invoke. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as ashar_create_wallet, ashar_create_customer_custodial_wallet, or ashar_create_customer_offramp_wallet — a distinction that matters a lot in this API.

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 use this tool versus the custodial-wallet or offramp-wallet creation siblings, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., does the customer need to exist first?). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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