wallet_get_pockets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: returns all pockets by default, filters with pocket_id, multiple pockets possible. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, and rate limits.

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?

The description is 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, filter behavior, and important note. No unnecessary words, though the [PRIVATE] tag is slightly extraneous. Efficient and well-structured.

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 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenario and key caveat. It hints at output fields but does not detail the structure. No mention of pagination or limits, but likely not needed for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the output (balances, UUIDs, available funds) and the critical multiple-pockets caveat, which goes beyond the 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 the tool gets balances, UUIDs, and available funds from Simple Wallet (Broker), explicitly excluding Pro/Earn balance. It identifies the resource (Simple Wallet pockets) and action (get balances) well.

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 explains when to use the pocket_id filter and includes an important caveat about multiple pockets for the same symbol. It mentions what is excluded (Pro/Earn) but does not explicitly suggest alternative tools for those use cases, though sibling tools exist.

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