get_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a safe, non-mutating operation, and lists the returned data. However, it does not disclose behavior when agentId is omitted (whether it defaults to the current agent), nor any auth/rate-limit implications, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that efficiently states the action, resource, and key return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and return values. However, the lack of parameter clarification and absence of usage context (e.g., default agent) leaves it incomplete enough to require extra reasoning from the agent.

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 has one optional parameter (agentId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must clarify its role. The description does not mention agentId at all, nor explain which agent's wallet is read by default. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the agent's escrow/payout wallet'), and lists the key return fields (address, USDC balance, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_transactions (read transactions) and withdraw_funds (mutate funds).

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 implies a clear use case: when you need wallet address, balance, or status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this tool vs. related financial operations.

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