blockrun_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the tool's behavior: two wallets on Base and Solana, active chain switching without env vars, actions' effects (e.g., 'provisions + activates the Solana wallet'), budget controls, and multi-agent orchestration. All behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 thorough and well-structured with bullet points for actions, budget controls, and usage patterns. While it is longer than necessary, every sentence contributes value. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance ('Call this FIRST...'). A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains effective.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It does so partially: 'status shows both addresses/balances and which is active', 'report → See per-agent spending breakdown', 'setup: Get funding instructions + QR code'. However, it does not describe the exact format or structure of responses for actions like budget or delegate. Given the complexity of the tool, a bit more detail would be beneficial, but it is largely 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 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, but the description adds extensive meaning: it explains each action in detail (status, setup, QR, chain, budget, delegate, revoke, report), provides examples (e.g., budget_action:'set' with budget_amount:1.00), and clarifies parameter interplay (e.g., agent_id required for delegate/revoke). The description transforms bare schema into usable knowledge.

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 specifies the action: 'manage the BlockRun payment wallet and control agent spending budgets'. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating 'Do NOT call this for actual AI queries — use blockrun_chat for that.' The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST if any other blockrun_* tool returns a payment/balance error', 'Call this to check your current USDC balance before expensive operations', and 'Call this to set spending limits before spawning child agents.' It also tells when not to use and offers an alternative tool (blockrun_chat). A multi-agent usage pattern is provided.

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