Wallet Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context: 'secure key storage in ~/.rustchain/mcp_wallets/' and 'Ed25519 cryptography compatible with RustChain blockchain.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether existing wallets with the same name are overwritten, or what permissions are required. These are notable gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action. There is slight redundancy: 'Create a new Ed25519 wallet' and 'Generates a new wallet' both emphasize the creation aspect. Otherwise, each sentence contributes useful detail (purpose, storage, compatibility), so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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 output schema exists and covers return values, the description does not need to explain those. It adequately explains the side effect (file storage location) and the cryptographic standard. It could mention prerequisites or refer to related wallet tools for next steps, but these are covered in other dimensions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters; it does not elaborate on agent_name or password beyond what is already in the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Create a new Ed25519 wallet with BIP39 seed phrase.' This is a specific verb (create) with a resource (wallet) and distinguishing details (Ed25519, BIP39) that set it apart from siblings like wallet_export, wallet_import, and wallet_balance. Even though a sibling named rustchain_create_wallet exists, the description grounds it in RustChain compatibility, making the intent unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool – when you need a new wallet – but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as wallet_import or wallet_export, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no direct routing to sibling tools or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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