Surf Wallet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the ability to inspect 'any wallet' across multiple chains, view token balances, NFTs, transaction logs, and net worth trends. It doesn't mention rate limits, response pagination, or authentication, but those are less critical given the annotations.

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 efficiently structured: a brief front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact command list with parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is consistent and scannable. It provides comprehensive information without unnecessary prose.

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, the description adequately outlines what data is available (balances, NFTs, labels, history, protocols, net worth) and defines all commands. It lacks explicit return value specifications per command, but the overview is sufficient for most usage. Given the complexity of the tool, the description is quite complete.

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 minimal (only command and free-form params), and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by providing detailed parameter lists for each command, including enums for chain, sort_by, order, and flow, and specifying required fields (address*). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema and enables proper tool invocation.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Inspect any wallet') and resource ('wallet data from Surf'), and the list of commands (detail, history, etc.) enriches the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on wallet data across chains and DeFi positions.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use this when the user needs wallet data from Surf') and covers a range of sub-uses (balances, NFTs, history, protocols). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and the commands provide guidance on selecting the right sub-command.

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