agentscoin_create_wallet

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds meaningful security behavior — the private key is persisted locally, must never be displayed, and only the address should be shown. It does not disclose what happens on repeat invocation (overwrite vs. error), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loads the action in one clause, then packs the critical handling rules into three tight sentences with an explicit IMPORTANT marker. No sentence is redundant.

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 usefully specifies what to surface ('Show ONLY the address'), compensating for the missing return contract. It leaves the repeat-call/idempotency case unaddressed, a minor but real omission for a wallet-creation mutation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its words on behavior and output handling instead of parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new AgentsCoin wallet for the agent') and immediately names the sibling tool that handles the one adjacent operation (agentscoin_reveal_private_key). An agent can distinguish this from agentscoin_create_coin or agentscoin_register_name without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the key is used automatically by send/create/swap, and revealing it is reserved for agentscoin_reveal_private_key only when the user explicitly asks. It does not state when creating a wallet is or isn't appropriate (e.g. if one already exists), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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