App (operating) wallet — status, live balance, and what to do next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the balance is 'LIVE onchain' (freshness, not cached) and the wallet is 'the address the SERVER signs with on the user's behalf' (custody model). It does not mention rate limits or latency, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and it is front-loaded: identity of the resource first, the call trigger second, the negative disambiguation last. Every clause earns its place by either scoping scope or routing behavior.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does: existence, status, live balances, and next action. The four refusal causes also pre-empt the most likely follow-up question, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but nothing is needed.

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 resource (the app/operating wallet) and exactly what it reports: existence, status, live SOL+USDC balances, next action required. It also explicitly negates the nearest confusable sibling — 'This is NOT the main wallet' — so an agent can separate it from get_portfolio/get_vault without reading schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this BEFORE explaining why a write was refused,' plus the four possible causes (no wallet / not activated / revoked / empty float). This tells the agent both when to reach for it and what decision it feeds, which is stronger than a generic 'use for status checks.'

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