get-wallet-sync-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what the response format looks like, or potential error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't provide enough behavioral context for a read operation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'syncing status' means in practical terms, what values might be returned, or how to interpret the results. The description should provide more context about the operation's purpose and expected outcomes.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both required parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage examples.

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 action ('Get the syncing status') and target resource ('wallet with the blockchain network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-exchange-sync-status' or 'get-wallet-balance', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-exchange-sync-status' for exchanges or 'get-wallet-balance' for balance information. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a connectionId from the 'get-blockchains' call, which is implied by the parameter description but not stated in the tool description itself.

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