get_wallets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable detail about units ('Balance is in satoshis for BTC wallet and cents for USD wallet'), which goes beyond the basic function and helps the agent interpret results correctly. No mention of read-only safety, but 'Get' implies a read operation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get all wallets') and immediately provides essential unit information. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the units of the returned balances. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool without further clarification.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (there are none to describe), but it does provide useful context about return units, which is tangential to parameters. No gaps here.

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's function: 'Get all wallets (BTC and USD) with their current balances.' It specifies the resource (wallets), scope (all), and asset types (BTC and USD), distinguishing it from singular wallet tools like get_wallet_balance.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving all wallets at once, which is implicit usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the name and description make the intended use clear enough without such guidance.

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