create_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new wallet' only conveys that a mutation occurs but says nothing about side effects, authorization needs, required inputs beyond the schema, or reversibility. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It restates the tool name without adding any substantive value, so it fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' criterion.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a wallet is, any prerequisites, and expected behavior. It does none of these, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly in a real workflow.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (blockchainId and vaultId), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or relationships, so it earns the baseline 3 without enhancement.

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 'Create a new wallet' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (wallet), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_vault or create_token, which also involve creation actions. Thus it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. With siblings like create_vault and deploy_contract, the absence of usage criteria leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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