AgentWallet MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: server-side signing, RPC broadcasting, and different return values for EVM (transaction hash) versus Solana (signature). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and return values, the second adds crucial behavioral context about signing and broadcasting. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

For a complex transaction tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and return types but lacks information about error responses, side effects, or security considerations that would be important for such a sensitive operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples). It mentions EVM/Solana contexts which relate to parameters but doesn't explicitly map them.

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 specific action ('Sign and broadcast a transaction') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sign_transaction' (which likely only signs) and 'transfer' (which might be simpler). It explicitly mentions both EVM and Solana contexts, providing clear differentiation.

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 sending transactions but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer', 'transfer_token', or 'call_contract'. It mentions server-side signing and RPC broadcasting, which provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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