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. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description discloses the three facets of the response (has wallet, unlocked, capabilities), but it says nothing about whether secrets are exposed, whether it requires an unlocked session, or what happens when no wallet exists.

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 sentence is front-loaded and efficient, covering the tool's purpose in one line. The trailing 'Tip' is a promotional aside that does not help select or invoke this tool, so it slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it only vaguely characterizes the return values ('what it can do'). Combined with the unresolved overlap against get_wallet_info, an agent has enough to call it but not full confidence about the response or when it is the right choice.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly requires no arguments from the caller.

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 ('Get the agent's wallet status') and enumerates what is returned: wallet existence, lock state, and capabilities. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wallet_info, which appears to cover overlapping ground, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_wallet_info or the dedicated wallet_unlock/wallet_list tools, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here. The only pointer is a 'Tip' routing to earning_opportunities, which is a cross-sell for downstream asset use rather than usage guidance for this tool.

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