Create Quai Wallet

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

The description goes far beyond the minimal annotations (which only state readOnlyHint=false, etc.) by disclosing encryption details (V3 keystore, scrypt, AES-128-CTR, MAC), file permissions, that the private key is never returned or logged, that address generation 'grinds' until it lands in the requested zone, and that a paired Qi wallet is created by default. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 long but information-dense, with no fluff. It opens with the core purpose and then systematically covers security, behavior, and usage. Some details, like the exact keystore cipher suite, could be seen as more than strictly necessary, but they serve to build trust and clarify behavior, so every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what happens, what is stored, how security works, and how to spend later. The only notable gap is that it never states what the tool actually returns (e.g., wallet address or confirmation). This is a minor omission given the depth of other context, but it is still a gap for an agent that needs to use the result.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains why 'zone' matters (location-aware addresses, grinding), that 'password' is reused for the paired Qi wallet, and what pairQiWallet=true actually implies for conversions. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names the precise resource ('Quai (QUAI-ledger) private key and address'), clearly distinguishing it from import_wallet by emphasizing 'brand-new' and from create_qi_wallet by explaining the paired Qi wallet behavior. The custodial-store framing and explicit tie to send_transaction leave no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 description explicitly says to use send_transaction with the wallet's name and password to spend from it, and gives a concrete condition for skipping the paired Qi wallet via pairQiWallet=false. It does not explicitly contrast with import_wallet or create_qi_wallet, but the 'brand-new' wording and paired-wallet explanation imply the appropriate alternatives, so the guidance is clear if not exhaustive.

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