Create Qi Wallet

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the wallet is HD/mnemonic-based, that only the mnemonic is encrypted at rest using a specific V3 keystore scheme, and that the mnemonic is never returned. It also warns that without a Qi wallet converted funds may be unrecoverable, a meaningful behavioral consequence beyond what annotations or schema provide.

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 substantial yet dense: purpose, usage, internal behavior, security, and alternative routing are each covered in order with no redundant filler. The most decision-relevant information—what it creates, when to use it, and what happens without it—is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, consequences, alternatives, internal mechanics, and security, which is unusually complete for a create tool with no annotations and no output schema. The only gap is that it never states what the successful response contains (e.g., address, zone, or name), which an agent may need when using the returned wallet; this keeps it from a perfect score.

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%, and each parameter already has clear semantics. The description reinforces that name and password are used for storage/encryption and hints at zone/name as reasons for direct use, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Generate a new Qi-ledger wallet'), identifies the ledger type (UTXO-based), and explicitly contrasts it with account-based QUAI wallets from create_wallet. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from the closest sibling.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool: as a destination for QUAI->Qi conversions (citing send_transaction / get_conversion_rate) and later convert_qi_to_quai. It also names the alternative create_wallet with pairQiWallet and the conditions for direct use (standalone Qi wallet or different zone/name), giving the agent both inclusion and exclusion rules.

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