wallet_get_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what fields are returned and framing the tool around deposit network support, which goes beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, with the core action front-loaded, followed by a use-before pointer and a compact list of return fields. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, when to use it, what the returned data contains, and how the symbol parameter relates to the result. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both symbol and jwt are already documented. The description adds mild context by giving currency examples (bitcoin, ethereum, binanceSmartChain) and implying symbol maps to a currency, but it does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists available networks for a specific currency.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns (network ID, name, native currency, fee currency, tag/memo requirement) and differentiates it from wallet_get_pocket_addresses by noting it should be used first.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: use before wallet_get_pocket_addresses to see which networks support deposits. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to other network-related tools, but the sequencing guidance and deposit-focused purpose are clear enough for an agent.

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