loot_wallet_status

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

The description states 'Chain reads only,' which is a useful behavioral disclosure (no mutations), and it implies the tool returns current data without side effects. However, it does not describe potential errors, rate limits, or what happens with invalid addresses, and there are no annotations to supplement this. The read-only note is a positive but incomplete disclosure.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose (wallet ETH balance and keys) before the optional token clause. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though slightly long due to enumerating fields.

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?

The description lists the data returned but omits details like the response format, pagination (if any), and error handling. For a read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate gap. The 'chain reads only' note helps, but an agent would still need to infer behavior around missing or malformed input.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'with token' enables the full game position, implying token is an optional address, but it does not clarify the relationship between 'wallet' and 'token' (both appear to be addresses per the schema's $ref). The description adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity about why and when to supply the token parameter.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a wallet's ETH balance, universal keys, welcome state, and optional full game position with a token. It uses specific terms (ETH balance, universal keys, unopened boxes) that distinguish it from generic 'status' tools, and the 'wallet' qualifier separates it from token-centric siblings like loot_token_state.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention loot_token_state, loot_status, or when to omit or include the optional token parameter. 'Chain reads only' is the only contextual hint, but it doesn't help select among siblings.

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