get_swap_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it states 'Spends nothing', explains that only shielded coins are synced, discloses the roughly 5-minute genesis sync delay, and specifies the { synced: false, syncingSeconds } retry state. It also describes pending-balance semantics, reserved coin TTLs, released maker halves, and how pendingHalves relate to offered or restored halves.

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 information is relevant, but it is delivered as one long, densely nested paragraph with many backticked field names and subordinate clauses. It is front-loaded with what the wallet is, but the lack of structure makes the many return-state details harder to scan than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does extensively. It covers balances, spendable amounts, pending returns, pendingHalves, reserved coins, released halves, offer metadata, and the unsynced response state, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret this complex read tool.

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 has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource: the shielded swap wallet, including address, public keys, balances, spendable amounts, pending returns, pending halves, and reserved coins. It is more than a tautology and an agent can infer it is a state-reading tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_swap_offer, list_swap_offers, or my_swap_offers.

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?

Usage is mostly implied: use this to inspect the shielded wallet state. The description gives a useful retry instruction for the first-sync case ('call again'), and mentions relationships to revert_swap_offer and post_swap_offer, but it does not state when to choose this tool over the sibling offer-listing tools.

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