Wallet Import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the types of input (seed phrase or keystore JSON), but doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether this creates a new wallet entry or overwrites an existing one, whether it requires network access, or if success is guaranteed. The 'source' parameter mentions 'from wallet_export' which hints at a companion workflow, but this is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. There's no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 an import tool with three optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequate but not rich. It could explain the expected behavior of 'password' (e.g., required if keystore is encrypted) or mention what happens on invalid input. The output schema likely covers return values, so that's not a gap, but the description lacks behavioral details for edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds some value by explicitly stating the two input types (seed phrase and keystore JSON) and their relationship (keystore comes from wallet_export). It doesn't add details about 'password' beyond the schema, and 'wallet_id' is self-explanatory. The description doesn't compensate for any ambiguity in the schema, which is already clear.

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: importing a wallet from a seed phrase or keystore JSON. This is distinct from sibling tools like wallet_export and wallet_create, but does specifically differentiate itself as the import counterpart. It could explicitly mention that it creates a wallet on the system, but the verb 'import' is clear enough.

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 this tool: when you have an existing seed phrase or keystore JSON and want to bring it into the system. It doesn't compare to wallet_create or wallet_export, and doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., if you want to generate a new wallet, use wallet_create). The context is implicit but not explicit.

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