list_wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, consistent data. The description adds context about filtering options but does not contradict annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, but given annotations, this is acceptable.

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: first states purpose, second explains two key parameters. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., listing all parameters).

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 output schema exists, return format is covered. However, pagination parameters (page_size, limit) are not mentioned in the description, which is a gap for effective use. The description is adequate for basic use but not complete.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains non_zero and asset_id but omits page_size and limit. This leaves a significant gap for agents to understand how to control pagination.

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 lists wallet balances for Bitpanda. The verb 'list' and resource 'asset wallet balances' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_transactions or list_trades, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 non_zero and asset_id parameters. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio for portfolio summary, list_trades for trade history).

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