create_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that private keys are encrypted server-side and never exposed, which is critical security information. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise security detail. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the creation action and security aspect but misses details like return format (beyond mentioning ID and address), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should do more to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (label and chain_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage without extra value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new EVM or Solana wallet'), specifying it generates wallet ID and address. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wallet' or 'list_wallets' by being a creation tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools (e.g., 'create_paywall').

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 implied through context: it's for creating wallets when needed, with no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like importing or retrieving existing wallets. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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