set_wallet_mode

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

The description lacks any behavioral insight beyond the basic action. No annotations exist to compensate. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to pending transactions), authorization requirements, or whether the mode change is persistent. The description is a tautology of the tool name.

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 that conveys the core function without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'agent' mode entails, how the mode affects subsequent operations, or whether network is required. Sibling tools like 'get_wallet_mode' could imply context, but the description itself is incomplete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; 'between browser and agent' matches the enum but does not explain the meaning of each mode or the role of the network parameter (e.g., whether it scopes the mode change or is required for certain networks). No additional semantic detail is provided.

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 action (switch signing mode) and identifies the two modes (browser and agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_mode' (read-only) and 'connect_browser_wallet' (connection). The specific verb+resource pair is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to switch modes or prerequisites (e.g., wallet must be connected). There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to other wallet management tools.

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