Post Instances Customers Blockchain Wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that repeat calls create duplicate wallets (idempotency is only available via the optional Idempotency-Key), no permission or KYC preconditions, and no note that self-custody details are required for Brazilian customers.

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?

Three words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded detail because there is no detail at all.

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?

For a creation tool taking a nested request body, a 17-value network enum, and conditional fields (is_self_custody required for BR customers), with no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent could invoke it but would have no guidance on body composition or error/duplicate behavior.

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 only 50%; customer_id and Idempotency-Key are documented, but instance_id has no description and the nested requestBody (with required name/network and a 17-value network enum) is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description does nothing to compensate, leaving the most complex parameter unexplained.

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?

"Add Blockchain Wallet" gives a verb and a resource, so the agent knows this creates a blockchain wallet. But it is essentially a restatement of the title and does not distinguish it from adjacent siblings like PostV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsOfframpWallets or PostV1InstancesCustomersWallets, nor does it state scope (per customer, per instance).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives present in the sibling list (Get/Delete/Patch blockchain wallets, or the offramp wallets endpoint). The agent must infer that POST = create from the name alone.

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