wrap_eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (wrapping tokens) and mentions the requirement for DeFi protocols, but does not cover other behavioral traits such as transaction costs, confirmation times, error conditions, or what happens on failure. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third clarifies parameter formatting. There is zero waste, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter formatting, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., transaction outcomes, errors) and does not explain return values. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that modifies blockchain state.

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 already documents all parameters (wallet_id, amount, chain_id). The description adds meaning for 'amount' by specifying the format ('human-readable format') and providing an example ('0.5' for 0.5 ETH), but does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides for 'wallet_id' or 'chain_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Wrap native tokens') and resources involved (ETH, AVAX, BNB, POL, PLS into WETH, WAVAX, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unwrap_eth' by specifying the conversion direction and mentions the purpose ('Required for most DeFi protocols that use ERC-20 tokens instead of raw native tokens'), making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Required for most DeFi protocols that use ERC-20 tokens instead of raw native tokens'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'unwrap_eth' for the reverse operation). It implies usage for DeFi compatibility but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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