monitor_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: monitoring, alerting via callback URL, and auto-freezing linked wallets. This goes beyond basic expectations by specifying the 'single transaction' trigger, making side effects transparent.

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 core purpose, then details. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition of schema.

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?

The description covers the core monitoring behavior, trigger, and side effects. While there is no output schema or mention of return values, the tool is primarily a setup action, and the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of idempotency or how to stop monitoring, but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the alert triggers on a single-transaction drop, which is not explicit in the threshold_pct description. This helps the agent understand the exact condition.

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: 'Watch a wallet for drain threats' with specific behavior (alert and auto-freeze). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freeze_wallet and scan_contract by focusing on monitoring and reactive actions.

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 implies usage for ongoing monitoring of a wallet's balance, with clear trigger conditions (threshold drop in a single transaction) and consequences (alert and freeze). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to deploy this tool.

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