nostr_get_pubkey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the NIP-06 derivation path, both hex and npub return formats, and the unlocked-wallet requirement. It stops short of explicitly saying the operation is read-only or describing error behavior.

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 core description is front-loaded and efficient. However, the appended tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to selecting or invoking this tool and does not earn 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?

For a simple parameterless read operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers derivation path, output formats, and the wallet prerequisite. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though explicit read-only confirmation would make it fully self-contained.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

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: derive the Nostr public key from the active wallet. It also names the derivation standard and return formats, making the operation unambiguous relative to sibling wallet and key tools.

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 states the prerequisite that an unlocked wallet is required, which implies a wallet_unlock step. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like taproot_get_pubkey or nostr_sign_event.

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