Кошелёк агента

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important safety property ('keys are never returned'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, there's no mention of account prerequisites, whether chain selection is needed, fee details, or specificity about what 'current limits' means. For a no-annotation read tool, the disclosure is partial but the key privacy aspect is covered.

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?

One concise sentence delivers the purpose and the key safety disclosure. Zero waste, front-loaded with the action and data types, ends with the important constraint about keys never being returned. Appropriately sized for a parameterless read tool.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, read-only semantics) so the completeness bar is lower. The description covers what it shows and the critical privacy guarantee. Minor gaps exist around what 'current limits' specifically refers to and whether any setup is needed, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the coverage is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there's no parameter schema to compensate for. The description adds meaning about the data returned (address, signer type, current limits) without needing to document parameters. This receives the baseline 4 for tools with no parameters since the semantic burden is inherently lighter.

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 shows wallet address, signer type, and current limits. It names the verb 'shows' and the specific data types. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bridge_start or bridge_status, though its function (wallet info) is distinct enough from the action-oriented siblings to be reasonably clear.

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 implies this is an informational read tool for wallet details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. For a zero-parameter read-only tool like this, the context is fairly self-evident, but explicit guidance would help.

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