wallet_setup

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no key is taken or returned, that the output is a short-lived setup link, and that the link must not be shared or logged. That is meaningful behavioral and security context an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not cover permissions, auth requirements, or whether prior wallet state is affected, so it is not a 5.

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 and followed by the security/handling caveat. Almost every clause earns its place, though 'Takes no key and returns no key' is slightly repetitive phrasing within the same sentence.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining the return value (a short-lived link) and its handling rules. What it omits is any explanation of the sole input parameter and any statement of prerequisites or side effects, which leaves the definition adequate but not fully self-contained for a wallet-provisioning tool.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, chainId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it at all. 'Takes no key' refers to key material, not to the chainId parameter, so the agent gets no help understanding whether chainId scopes the wallet to a chain or is optional in practice. This is a real gap for the tool's only input.

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 names specific verbs and resources: open a private local wallet setup, import or create a wallet, view a receive address and QR code. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like wallet_balance or get_chain_info, which deal with balances and chain data rather than wallet provisioning. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated scenarios (import a wallet, create a wallet, view a receive address for a manual deposit), which tells the agent the contexts where this applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do instead when the agent needs an automated flow, and the 'do not share or log the link' line is a handling constraint rather than a selection rule.

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