Set up a payer wallet

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full load and does it well: pricing (0.005 USDC per secret on Base), the 1 USDC = 200 secrets conversion, idempotent create-if-none behavior, the private key living in a local file and never being shown to the agent, and the one-time-link nature of the backup. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking a wallet-creation tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the funding instruction, then the security caveat and the optional parameter. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the key return field (`fundUrl`) and explains what to do with it. For a 2-parameter, 0-required setup tool it covers action, cost, security model, and follow-up steps completely.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the funding conversion rate that makes amount_usdc interpretable and clarifies the intent behind backup_to_owner (a copy of the key for the owner, delivered as a one-time link).

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 and resource ('Create the local wallet that pays for secrets') plus the secondary effect of returning a funding link, and it explains the wallet's role in the free-tier/paid-secret flow. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling ncrypted_wallet, so an agent must infer the split between 'set up' and whatever ncrypted_wallet does.

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?

Gives clear operational context: call it when no wallet exists, then send the user `fundUrl` and ask for USDC on Base. It also gives conditional guidance for backup_to_owner ('only if the user wants a copy of the key'). It stops short of routing against alternatives such as ncrypted_wallet or ncrypted_status.

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