wallet_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that it reads only, never moves money, and never reveals the private key, which is exactly the safety surface an agent needs for a wallet tool. It stops short of disclosing freshness/caching of the on-chain balance or error conditions (e.g., unreachable RPC).

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The returned fields are front-loaded and the safety caveat is placed last as a short, high-value clause; every clause earns its place.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only source of return information and it enumerates the four returned values well, which is sufficient. Minor gap: nothing is said about whether the balance is a fresh on-chain read or cached, which matters for a wallet-balance tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion because none is needed.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus a precisely named resource ('the paying wallet') and an explicit enumeration of what is reported: address, on-chain USDC balance, spent amount, remaining budget. The read-only framing also distinguishes it from the sibling pay_and_fetch, which by name moves money.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call before paying to check budget, but the description never states when to use it or names an alternative. No prerequisites or sequencing relative to pay_and_fetch are given, so the routing is left to inference.

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