Payment setup and spend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding real context beyond the structured data: it returns addresses only (not keys), and it exposes caps, budgets, spend, and tool prices. It stops short of explaining pagination or response format, but the added scope detail is substantive.

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?

A single dense sentence with 'Free.' front-loaded as the most decision-relevant fact, followed by the returned fields. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the five things it surfaces. It is close to complete; only the exact response shape and any address-truncation behavior are left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and no parameter-level detail to add; the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Shows) and resource (the server's payment wallet configuration) and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: wallet addresses, per-call cap, session budget, spend, and per-tool pricing. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like watch_status or watch_create, though it never explicitly disclaims them.

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 leading 'Free.' signals there is no cost barrier to calling it and implicitly positions it as the tool to check before incurring spend, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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