wallet_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool 'takes no arguments and never moves money,' which are key traits. However, it does not mention possible error conditions or output format, but given the simplicity and read-only nature, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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: two sentences. The first sentence lists what the tool provides, and the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient. It fully enumerates what information is returned: address, SOL, stablecoin balances, pre-paid balance, and spending budget. This is complete for a status-check tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that there are no arguments, adding no further parameter detail needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already handles it.

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 what the tool does: it shows the agent wallet details including address, SOL balance, stablecoin balances, pre-paid balance, and remaining budget. It uses specific verbs ('Show') and resource identifiers, and the detail distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle payments or subscriptions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call it first when a payment fails, to tell an empty wallet apart from a cap that has been reached.' This provides clear context and a concrete use case, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it over alternatives.

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