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 and does meaningfully disclose behavior: the tool is a read of wallet state and it will hard-fail when AGENT_KEY is unset. It omits details such as required permissions beyond the key, caching, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned fields, the second front-loads the failure condition. No filler, and the most actionable caveat is not buried.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the configuration prerequisite. It is nearly complete for a zero-param read tool, missing only minor details like whether the call itself provisions a wallet or where the spend cap originates.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level claims are made, and none are needed.

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?

Names a specific resource (the agent wallet on Robinhood Chain) and enumerates exactly what it reports: address, USDG balance, ETH balance, Permit2 approval state, and spend cap. This is far beyond a restatement of the name and lets an agent know precisely what information it retrieves.

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 a clear operational prerequisite ('AGENT_KEY is not set, so this tool will fail until a wallet is configured'), which tells the agent when the call is viable. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with wallet-status retrieval, so routing guidance is largely unnecessary here.

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