wallet_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost (free) and a non-obvious conditional behavior (balance hidden unless BACON_DISCLOSE_BALANCE is enabled), which explains a potentially confusing omission, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or explicitly confirming it is a read-only operation.

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 dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (reported fields, cost, conditional balance disclosure), with the most decision-relevant content front-loaded. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the job of enumerating the returned signals, so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements for a tool whose results depend on configuration state.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'service' filter. The description adds only mild context by implying that omitting it checks affordability across all services; no format or syntax detail is added.

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 names a concrete verb-and-resource (shows wallet status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: payment network, configuration state, spending limits and remaining amounts, and per-service affordability. Siblings (quote, list_services, image tools) are unrelated domains, so no differentiation is needed and none is missing.

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?

It implies a pre-flight use case by reporting whether the wallet can afford each service, and 'Free' tells the agent this check costs nothing, but it never states when to call this versus the sibling 'quote', nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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