Wallet Dashboard

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

The readOnlyHint-only annotation is complemented by the description's added behavioral detail that this 'opens an interactive dashboard' rather than merely returning data. This is important context for an agent deciding whether the tool is suitable for automated workflows. No contradiction with the read-only annotation exists.

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 carry the full message with no filler: the first states the action and subject, the second adds the specific dashboard contents. The information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only dashboard tool, the description is largely complete: it names the visible elements (NWC connection, Cashu balance, auto-pay limit, credential list) and signals that the result is an interactive interface. A bit more context about how this relates to the sibling balance/credential tools would round it out.

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, and the schema's property list is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by framing the tool as a view-only dashboard.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('wallet status, balances, and stored credentials'), making the core purpose clear. It also lists concrete dashboard contents, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like l402-balance or l402-credentials.

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 usage for a consolidated wallet overview ('View wallet status, balances, and stored credentials') and clearly indicates an interactive dashboard. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling balance, credential, or config tools, and provides no exclusions.

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