list_wallets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all') but doesn't describe key traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), what the output format looks like (e.g., list of wallet addresses or objects), if there are rate limits, or any permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive wallet data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all created/imported wallets'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and scope.

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 complexity of wallet management (likely involving sensitive financial data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'wallets' entails (e.g., addresses, keys, types), the return format, or behavioral aspects like safety or limitations, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a blockchain context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misalignment with the empty schema.

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 'List all created/imported wallets' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('wallets'), with 'created/imported' providing some scope differentiation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_token_accounts' which might also retrieve wallet-related information, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing wallets to exist), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_balance' or 'import_wallet' that might overlap in wallet-related contexts, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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