list_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns specific data fields (wallet IDs, addresses, labels, chain IDs, status), which adds useful context about output format. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second specifies the output fields. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a list operation. It explains what it does and what it returns. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning it's a read-only operation or any limitations, but the output details compensate partially.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs.

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 ('List all wallets') and the resource ('owned by the authenticated user'), specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wallet' (which retrieves a single wallet) by indicating it returns multiple wallets, and from 'create_wallet' or 'delete_wallet' by being a read operation.

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 context by stating 'owned by the authenticated user', suggesting it should be used when the user wants to see all their wallets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wallet' for a specific wallet, or provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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