whoami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: unreadable keys surface under `localSigners.unusable`, `solanaLink` reports whether the Solana wallet is proven to the account, and naming a key you don't hold makes a leg unsignable. It never states the operation is read-only, but the read semantics are evident from the content returned.

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 core answer is front-loaded, but the middle is a single run-on sentence with parentheticals nested three levels deep (`localSigners.unusable`, `solanaLink`), which hurts scanability. The settlement-address warning is valuable and earns its place, but the packaging could be broken into clearer clauses.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape, and it does: account, linked wallets, local signer addresses, unusable keys, and the Solana linkage proof. For an identity-inspection tool this is nearly complete, missing only a note on whether the listing is exhaustive or paginated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level; this sits at the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 first clause states precisely what is returned: the authenticated account with linked wallet addresses, plus `localSigners.addresses`. The resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the RFQ/deal siblings, though the verb ('returns') is implied rather than stated.

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 final sentence gives one concrete usage rule: use `localSigners.addresses.solana` as your settlement address on a Solana leg. However, nothing says when to call this tool versus siblings like `set_settlement_address` or before `create_rfq`, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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