wallet_create_local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions creating a wallet and returning a path and address, but does not disclose side effects like file creation, potential overwrites, required permissions, or any destructive aspects. The description implies mutation but offers minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the action and return values, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of many sibling wallet tools, the description covers the core functionality (creation, method, return). It lacks output schema but explicitly mentions return values. Minor omission of side effects prevents a 5.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, explaining 'name' as wallet name used as <name>.json and 'walletDir' as optional directory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning return values. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action 'Create', the resource 'local Solana wallet', the method 'using solana-keygen', and the return values 'path + public address'. This distinguishes the tool from sibling wallet tools like wallet_get_address (read) or wallet_transfer_sol (transfer).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other wallet creation or derivation tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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