freeze_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect ('Stops all transaction signing until manually unfrozen'), the reversible nature, and an authorization requirement ('Requires API key (X-Agent-Key) or wallet ownership'). It does not detail side effects or error behavior, but covers the critical aspects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every word contributes. It packs the purpose, effect, duration, and auth requirement without fluff. No unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an emergency action: what it does, what it stops, how it is undone, and who can do it. It does not mention return values or success/failure indication, but for a freeze action the critical information is present.

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 adds value by clarifying that 'wallet' and 'agent_id' are alternative selectors ('for a wallet address or agent') and that 'api_key' is required for authorization. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 a specific action: 'Emergency freeze all monitored wallets' with scope 'for a wallet address or agent.' This uses a distinct verb ('freeze') and resource ('monitored wallets') that immediately distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_alerts or verify_contract.

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 word 'Emergency' establishes the intended context (use during threats/compromise), and 'Stops all transaction signing' explains the consequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing freeze tool exists among the siblings, so the context is clear.

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