Create Wallet

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the meaningful custody detail ('custodial', i.e., tenant-held keys) and that the created object is returned, but says nothing about key custody implications, whether repeated calls create duplicate wallets, or network-specific constraints.

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 efficient, but the Args block is pure duplication of the input schema and occupies most of the text. Roughly half the description earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description notes the created wallet is returned but not what it contains (id, address, network, status), which an agent needs to chain subsequent calls. Annotations cover the safety profile, leaving this mostly adequate but with a real gap.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description's Args block restates them (network, name, optional external_id) without adding format, constraints, or supported-network values, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a new custodial wallet') plus scope ('for the tenant'), which implicitly separates it from the many customer-scoped create-wallet siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings (create_customer_wallet, create_customer_custodial_wallet), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'for the tenant' phrase implies this is the tenant-level variant rather than the customer-level wallet creators in the sibling list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., credentials, network support), and no stated alternatives.

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