wallet_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this requires a pre-configured wallet session. The mention of 'active wallet' suggests some statefulness but isn't explained.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and data returned. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. The list of returned fields is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned but lacks behavioral context (authentication, errors, what 'active' means). The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations about safety or operational constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both optional parameters (network with enum values and default, itemsPerPage with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('active wallet account info'), listing specific data fields returned (address, public key, nickname, on-chain balance, spending limits). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wallet_list_accounts' (which lists multiple accounts) and 'api_algod_get_account_info' (which appears to be a lower-level API call), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wallet_list_accounts' (for listing all accounts) or 'api_algod_get_account_info' (for raw account data). The description implies it retrieves the 'active' wallet, but doesn't clarify what 'active' means or prerequisites for having an active wallet.

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