wallet_status

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 only lists return values and says nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is scoped to the current user. For a status tool, read-only behavior is implied but never stated.

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 phrase, highly front-loaded, with no filler words. Every word adds meaning by specifying the contents of the status response.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives a minimal but sufficient overview of the response contents. However, it lacks any context about how to interpret 'pending incoming amounts' or whether the data is for the authenticated user. The overall completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. The description focuses on outputs rather than inputs, which is appropriate given the empty parameter list. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a status endpoint by listing the exact data it provides (wallet address, XNO balance, pending incoming amounts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle payments or quotes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'shows.'

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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