Wallet status

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the 'status' framing, so the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that the payload includes pause state and daily remaining spend ('what is left today'), which are behavioral facts an agent needs before attempting a payment that could fail or be blocked.

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 resource and followed immediately by the action trigger. The field enumeration is a dense list rather than prose, so it earns its length, though it reads slightly like a return-value dump rather than a crisp purpose statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the payload contents, including the two fields most relevant to spending decisions (limits and pause state). It is adequately complete for a zero-parameter read tool, with only minor ambiguity about formats/chain values left unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed ('this agent's wallet' is implicit context), and there is no schema surface left unexplained.

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 names a concrete resource (this agent's wallet) and enumerates exactly what the status call exposes: address, chain, balances, spending limits, remaining daily allowance, approval mechanics, and pause state. That is far more specific than a tautology, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from non-spending siblings such as find_services, so it stops short of 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?

"Check it before spending" is an explicit pre-flight trigger that maps directly onto the spending siblings (send_usdc, send_native, pay_x402) and explains why an agent would call this read tool first. It gives clear context but names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use condition.

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