create_agent_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly implies a write/mutation operation but lacks details on side effects, persistence, limits, or what happens post-creation. The 'owner access required' note is helpful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 sentence of 14 words, containing no unnecessary information. It is optimally concise and front-loaded with the core action and constraint.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is bare minimum. It fails to provide any contextual cues about usage, return behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, making it less helpful for an agent navigating a complex toolset.

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%, with the 'agent_name' parameter documented as 'Name for the agent wallet'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond this. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description adds no further parameter context.

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 it creates a new Bitcoin wallet for an AI agent, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Bitcoin wallet for an AI agent'), and includes a necessary access note ('owner access required'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_lightning_invoice' or 'setup_create_first_wallet' by specifying the agent context.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions owner access is required but does not explain when to use this tool versus other wallet-related tools (e.g., 'setup_create_first_wallet' for initial setup). No alternatives or prerequisites are discussed, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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