Get Wallet Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that address and balance are conditional on initialization, which clarifies the response shape beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences and a well-formatted return type. It front-loads the core purpose and includes no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and return values. The return type is explicitly documented, which is essential since there is no output schema. It does not elaborate on edge cases, but none are critical for this read-only status check.

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 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given no parameters exist.

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 checks wallet initialization status and balance, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('wallet'). It also specifies the return values (address and balance if initialized), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordnet_wallet_balance that likely only report balance.

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 usage for checking wallet status and balance but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ordnet_wallet_balance or ordnet_wallet_utxos. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the context is only implied.

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