token4u_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the wallet file location and permissions (~/.token4u-mcp/wallet.json, 0o600), that the private key never leaves the machine, how create loads or generates a keypair, and the underlying network (Base USDC). This far exceeds the minimum required.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise context paragraph and an action list. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff, making it scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 it has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the tool's purpose, all three actions with their effects, underlying network details, security properties, and prerequisite context (no token4u account needed), leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema covers the single parameter 'action' with an enum and description, the description adds substantial meaning by explaining what each enum value does: status shows address/newly-created flag, create generates/loads a keypair with security details, and setup provides funding/export steps. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 'Which wallet operation to perform.'

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 and resource: 'Manage local x402 wallet — create keypair, check status, and get funding guidance.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (token4u_chat, token4u_consumption) by focusing solely on wallet operations and explicitly noting this is for external x402 mode without a token4u account.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for 'pure external x402 mode' and notes 'No token4u account or internal wallet required,' which implies when to use this tool over alternatives that might require an account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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