Standard Tools: wallet

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

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true in annotations, the description doesn't need to explain safety. It adds the useful insight that this aggregates data 'across all networks', which is behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it omits what 'vault info' entails or how the wallet is connected, missing an opportunity to enrich transparency.

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 concise sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and scope. No redundancy or filler.

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 the simplicity of the tool (0 params, read-only annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it tells you what you get (wallet and vault info) and its scope (all networks). However, the vagueness of 'vault info' and lack of any hint about the exact return shape mean it's not a 5, but it's adequate for most use cases.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden on the description. The schema already covers everything (trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details that don't exist.

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 what the tool does: 'Get the connected wallet and vault info across all networks'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('connected wallet and vault info'), and scopes it globally ('across all networks'), distinguishing it from network-specific siblings like ethGetBalances and solanaBalances.

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 implies usage context—this is the tool to call when you need wallet/vault information across all networks—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The scope clue ('all networks') helps, but no alternative tools are referenced.

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