Show payer wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the free-secret allowance is daily ('today's remaining'), the balance is denominated in USDC on Base, and the call itself is free — all useful for deciding whether to invoke it.

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 no wasted words, and the most decision-relevant fact (remaining free secrets) is front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('pays for more') costs it a point.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what comes back and that it is free. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint against the closely related ncrypted_status sibling.

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 and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources returned: today's remaining free secrets, the payer wallet address, and its USDC balance on Base. That is materially clearer than the name alone and separates it from ncrypted_wallet_setup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with ncrypted_status, which could also plausibly report quota.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus sibling tools such as ncrypted_status or ncrypted_wallet_setup, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the returned fields alone that this is the quota/balance check.

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