list_agent_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it lists all agent wallets (with balances and status) but only for the agent's own wallet. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or that it is a read-only operation. Basic behavior is described but significant gaps remain.

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 that directly states the purpose and scope without any unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it lists agent wallets with balances and status, scoped to own wallet only. It could mention that the output is a list or that it may be empty, but overall it is complete for a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It implicitly conveys that no filtering or input is needed, which is sufficient.

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 agent wallets with balances and status, and adds a scope limitation ('agent key: own wallet only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_balance' which retrieves a single wallet's balance. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from other wallet-related tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing own wallets, but does not mention when to use 'get_agent_balance' for individual wallet details or other wallet operations. Agents would need to infer appropriate usage context.

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