link_wallet

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond the annotations: a two-step challenge-sign flow, the exact signing methods per network, that the key or seed never leaves the wallet, and the one-wallet-to-one-agent-key constraint. These are not derivable from readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint alone.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and then proceeds through the two-call workflow in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries actionable information about signing, security, or return behavior.

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 two-phase wallet-linking tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to use it, how to call it, what to sign, and what constraints apply. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining the conditional call sequence: first call with network and address only, then a second call with the returned signature. It also ties the signature to the exact message returned by the first call.

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: bind the wallet you pay with to your passport so purchase reports count as yours. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent tools like link_domain by making the wallet/passport linkage the core action.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: bind the payment wallet so purchase reports are attributed to the agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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