Get Wallet (x402 Payment)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about payment costs via HTTP 402, which is not covered by annotations, enhancing behavioral transparency.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: defining the action, identifying the target user, and clarifying the output and cost mechanism.

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-only tool with a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, payment requirement, and return type. It could be more explicit about alternative tools but is otherwise complete.

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 fully describes the 'addresses' parameter, including format and limits. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 action 'Get wallet holdings' and specifies the unique x402 payment protocol, distinguishing it from sibling tools like octav_get_wallet. It also explicitly mentions the output ('Returns wallet balances and values').

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 a clear usage context: 'For AI agents with automatic payment.' This indicates the intended audience but does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use a non-payment tool like octav_get_wallet).

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