midnight_wallet_state

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates it returns wallet state without mentioning side effects, which is appropriate for a read operation, but could be clearer about whether it queries the network or local state.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, each adding value. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

It covers return values well given no output schema, listing key categories. However, it omits details on individual coin structure and doesn't address the unusual fact that no parameters are required, weakening completeness.

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 schema already describes 'network' as 'Target network', but 'address' lacks description. The tool description does not add meaning for either parameter, missing an opportunity to clarify address format or optionality.

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 gets detailed wallet state, enumerates specific components (balances, coins, pending transactions, sync status), and distinguishes it from siblings like midnight_get_balance by emphasizing comprehensiveness.

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 'Use for' section lists three concrete scenarios (checking funds, debugging, monitoring health), guiding when to invoke. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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