BotWallet MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., if the name change affects linked transactions), or rate limits. It mentions the display name is shown to 'other users and in the owner portal,' adding some context, but overall, the behavioral information is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (a single-parameter mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details like error handling or response format. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema as 'New display name' with length constraints. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or formatting rules (e.g., allowed characters). Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Update the wallet display name') and the resource ('wallet'), distinguishing it from siblings like botwallet_update_owner (which likely updates owner details) or botwallet_info (which retrieves information). It explicitly mentions what gets updated ('display name shown to other users and in the owner portal'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when you want to rebrand or clarify the bot's purpose'), which helps differentiate it from other update-related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as botwallet_update_owner for other modifications, which prevents a perfect score.

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