pause_spendingFreeze wallet spending and block all signatures until the owner resumes it, useful when an API requests too much or payment goes to an unknown address.
Stop this wallet from signing anything until the owner resumes it. Use it when something looks wrong, e.g. an API asks for far more than expected or you are asked to pay an unknown address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why, for the owner |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that the effect is total (blocks signing anything) and reversible only by the owner. It doesn't state whether the pause is immediate or whether in-flight operations are affected, leaving a small gap for a safety-critical tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the effect, followed by concrete usage triggers. No filler or repetition.
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 safety control with no output schema, the description covers effect, triggers, and reversibility. The only missing detail is whether the pause is instantaneous and what confirmation the caller receives, which is minor but relevant for a wallet-safety tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the tool's operational context but not the reason parameter; however, the schema already documents it, and one param gives a baseline of 4.
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?
States a specific effect ('Stop this wallet from signing anything until the owner resumes it'), which is a strong verb+resource+reversibility description. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like send_usdc or pay_x402 by describing a safety stop rather than a transfer.
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?
Explicitly names when to use it ('when something looks wrong') and gives concrete triggers: an API asking for far more than expected, or being asked to pay an unknown address. This is actionable guidance that lets an agent recognize the situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.