x402_quick_wallet_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a valid MCP token short-circuits to ready status, otherwise a browser flow opens, and it reveals side effects such as post-login confirmation, session persistence until restart, and the need to restart to switch providers. These are substantial behavioral traits beyond a simple 'auth' label.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the trigger and purpose. Each of the four sentences contributes unique information: trigger/purpose, valid-token behavior, fresh-login confirmation, and provider/session caveat. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both normal and interactive flows. It covers the valid-token path, the browser-flow path, provider selection, post-login confirmation, and session/restart behavior. It does not detail failure modes or return structure, but for an auth handoff tool this is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for wallet_login_provider with enum values and descriptions. The description adds the default value ('Gate by default') and explains how the parameter maps to the browser flow, plus the restart constraint for changing providers. This exceeds the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific trigger ('when user selects sign_mode quick_wallet') and a clear action ('run this tool first to perform device-flow login/authorization'). It also states explicit outcomes (returns ready status and wallet addresses, or opens a browser flow), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, not a tautology.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when user selects sign_mode quick_wallet, run this tool first') and gives sequencing context ('before continuing to payment'). It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the trigger is clear enough. This is clear contextual guidance without exclusions.

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