get_all_wallets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list but omits important details such as whether the operation is read-only, the effect of the 'is_archived' parameter, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient to set accurate agent expectations.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it contains a typo ('asssets') and the second sentence is incomplete ('Returns a list of Wallets and asssets'). The conciseness is good, but the structure could be improved by correcting the typo and integrating the parameter information.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields, but it fails to provide essential context such as the scope of wallets (all user wallets?), default filtering behavior (archived excluded), or how to paginate. The tool has one parameter and an output schema, yet the description is too sparse to enable confident use.

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 0%, meaning the tool description does not explain the parameter. Although the input schema itself describes the 'is_archived' property, the description fails to mention it, so the agent must infer its existence from the schema. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all wallets'), and specifies that it returns balances. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_wallet_token_balance' which targets a single wallet. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., user's wallets).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools would be more appropriate. For example, it does not clarify that archived wallets are excluded by default or when 'get_wallet_token_balance' might be preferred.

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