wallet_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the output is a mnemonic that grants full fund access, plus a secure-environment precondition. It does not address whether the call is logged, whether password/confirmation gates apply (schema covers that), or what the response shape is, keeping 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?

The purpose sentence and security warning are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional noise that dilutes a security-critical tool's description and could distract an agent.

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 highly sensitive export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the primary risk. Parameter handling is fully documented by the schema, so remaining gaps (logging, confirmation flow) are minor.

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%, including a self-documenting enum-like const for confirm and sensitive-value warnings on password. The description adds nothing beyond the schema on parameters, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export the mnemonic phrase for a wallet') so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like wallet_import, wallet_list, or get_wallet_info. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 warning implies a usage condition ('Only use this in a secure environment'), which is real guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or stated alternative (e.g., use wallet_info if you only need the address). The condition is implied rather than operationalised.

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