tyi_create_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only adds 'FAST' as a performance hint but omits behavioral traits like what happens on duplicate wallet names, required permissions, or side effects. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a creation action.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the key message 'FAST. New wallet by name.' Every word earns its place, with no redundant or tangential information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and error behavior. It does not address what the tool returns (e.g., wallet object or ID) or handle edge cases. It is adequate for simple use but lacks completeness.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds 'by name' emphasizing name as key but provides no additional syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents meaning.

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 'New wallet by name' and provides an explicit usage rule: 'User said create/new wallet → call this NOT tyi_chat.' This distinguishes it from sibling tool tyi_chat, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs tyi_chat. However, it does not address other siblings like tyi_import_wallet or provide when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the single distinction.

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