Get BRC-100 Identity Key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the initialized-wallet prerequisite and the purpose of the returned public key (signature verification, address confirmation). No contradictions.

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 appropriately concise: the first sentence states the core function, the second adds essential context about on-chain identity and signature verification, and the final sentence gives the return shape. Every sentence earns its place without 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, why the returned data matters, and the prerequisite (initialized wallet). Missing error handling details are not critical for this simple getter.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description is not responsible for parameter documentation. The Description adds value by specifying the exact return shape ({ publicKey, address }), which is not covered by the input schema or an output schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the wallet's BRC-100 identity: its public key and address'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling wallet tools like ordnet_wallet_status, ordnet_wallet_balance, and ordnet_wallet_utxos, which focus on other aspects of the wallet.

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 states a clear precondition ('Requires an initialized wallet') and explains the practical use case: counterparties can use the public key to verify signatures and confirm address control. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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