blockrun_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains wallet architecture (two wallets, one active chain), lists all actions and their effects, and covers budget controls. However, it does not explicitly state potential side effects like whether switching chain disrupts ongoing operations or whether delegate/revoke have any persistence guarantees. Overall, it is transparent but could be slightly more specific on consequences.

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 long but well-structured into sections (actions, budget controls, multi-agent). It is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, but a slightly more concise phrasing could improve readability without losing information.

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 output schema, the description explains what each action returns (e.g., 'status shows both addresses/balances and which is active', 'report → See per-agent spending breakdown'). It covers all actions and parameters, includes a multi-agent usage pattern, and references sibling tools. It is complete for the tool's complexity and 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each action (e.g., 'setup: Get funding instructions + QR code'), clarifies parameter usage (e.g., 'chain: omit to just see the current active chain'), provides defaults, and gives concrete examples. This helps the AI agent understand parameter semantics deeply.

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 purpose: 'manage the BlockRun payment wallet and control agent spending budgets.' It specifies the resource (wallet) and verb (manage/control). Additionally, it distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing not to use for AI queries ('use blockrun_chat for that').

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Call this FIRST if any other blockrun_* tool returns a payment/balance error', 'Check current USDC balance before expensive operations', 'Set spending limits before spawning child agents.' It also tells when not to use: 'Do NOT call this for actual AI queries — use blockrun_chat for that.' Multiple usage patterns are provided, including a multi-agent orchestration sequence.

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