wrap_phrs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects, gas costs, required balances, or reversibility. The 'WETH-style deposit' hint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

While the tool is simple and no output schema is needed, the description omits important context such as gas costs, balance requirements, or the fact that wrapping is a reversible operation (via unwrap). Given zero annotations and a mutation tool, more completeness is expected.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including an example for 'amount' and an enum for 'network'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Wrap native PHRS into WPHRS (WETH-style deposit)'. It uses a specific verb ('Wrap') and identifies both the input resource ('native PHRS') and output ('WPHRS'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'unwrap_phrs'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unwrap_phrs' or any prerequisites. It does not mention typical use cases, such as needing WPHRS for DeFi interactions.

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