toast_get_wallet

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: amounts are denominated in dollars and the call requires a toast.app sign-in in a browser running ContextMint Bridge. It stops short of describing failure behavior when that sign-in is missing or how expiries are ordered.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the payload comes first, then the units note, then the auth prerequisite. Three sentences with no filler, though the list phrasing 'the next expiry, the units that expire, and the units you have received' is slightly repetitive.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does so by naming the four returned data points. The auth prerequisite is the key operational detail an agent needs before calling. Only error/precondition behavior is left unstated.

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% and the single `view` parameter carries a thorough enum description in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning about `view` beyond what the schema already says about compact vs full.

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?

Names a specific resource (Toast Cash wallet) and enumerates exactly what is returned: available balance including gifted stored value, next expiry, expiring units, and received units. It is clearly distinct from toast_get_loyalty and the order tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('Your Toast Cash' balance) rather than stated: no 'use this when...' clause, no mention of when to prefer it over toast_get_loyalty, and no exclusions. An agent can infer the call site but the description does not route it.

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