Post Instances Customers Wallets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is structured. The description adds nothing on what is actually provisioned (a wallet address on a chosen chain), whether it is reversible, or what side effects/costs exist — for an open-world mutation that is a real gap.

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 words: technically concise, but it is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded context to compress, so nothing earns or fails to earn its place — the budget is simply unused.

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?

A four-parameter, open-world, nested-body creation endpoint with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented in schema. The description provides none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 50% and the nested requestBody carries most of the semantic weight (network enum, name, external_id) with no help from the description. Nothing explains what network selection implies or how external_id is used, and the optional Idempotency-Key parameter is not referenced in the description at all.

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?

"Create Wallet" is essentially the tool name (PostV1InstancesCustomersWallets) restated as a verb phrase. It does not say which kind of wallet (managed on-chain wallet vs. blockchain wallet vs. offramp wallet), leaving it indistinguishable from the three sibling wallet-creation tools in the list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create this wallet versus PostV1InstancesCustomersBlockchainWallets or PostV1InstancesCustomersBankAccountsOfframpWallets, nor any prerequisites (funded account, onboarding/KYC state, supported network). The agent must infer everything from the path.

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