wallet_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses local encryption, the exact storage path (~/.aibtc/), and the critical one-time-only mnemonic reveal. It stops short of saying whether the new wallet becomes the active wallet, whether creation is reversible, or what happens on duplicate names.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the one-time-mnemonic warning front-loaded. The trailing marketing tip for earning_opportunities is the only mildly expendable element.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers enough to call it safely: encryption, storage location, credential requirements, and the irreversible consequence of losing the mnemonic. Minor gaps remain around post-creation wallet state and duplicate handling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains name, network, and the 8-character password minimum. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Create a new wallet ... with a generated BIP39 24-word mnemonic', and adds storage and encryption details. It implicitly distinguishes from wallet_import (import vs generate) but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is useful operational guidance ('Save the mnemonic securely - it will only be shown once') and a cross-sell tip toward earning_opportunities. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance — e.g. that wallet_import should be used when a mnemonic already exists, or what happens if one already exists.

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