create_agent_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'owner access required' which is valuable context about authentication needs, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the wallet is immediately usable, what data is returned, or if there are rate limits). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key constraint without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no output schema, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what happens after creation. While it mentions the access requirement, it doesn't describe the creation outcome, return values, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that creates a resource.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'agent_name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as naming conventions or constraints. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Create a new Bitcoin wallet') and the resource ('for an AI agent'), with the additional constraint 'owner access required' that distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like 'list_agent_wallets' or 'get_agent_balance' which don't require owner access. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states 'owner access required', providing clear context about when this tool should be used (when the caller has owner privileges). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_agent_wallets' for viewing existing wallets, so it falls short of the highest score.

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