Set up the agent's Lightning wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that create_hosted creates a custodial wallet at coinos.io, stores credentials locally in ~/.hypawave/wallet.json, and never sends them to Hypawave. It also describes what each action returns and that the NWC_URL env var overrides configured values.

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 information-dense and every sentence contributes meaning, but it is structured as a single long paragraph that reduces scannability. A bulleted list or more sentence breaks would improve readability, though the content length is justified given the tool's multi-modal behavior.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers all invocation paths, return values (operator-facing options, steps, funding instructions), and configuration precedence. The agent is fully equipped to decide when and how to call the tool, including safety constraints about operator consent.

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 documents all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the required call flow (omit action for options, confirm must be true only after explicit agreement), the effect of omitting nwc_url, and the optional nature of amount_sats, which goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 'One-time wallet setup so purchases can pay automatically,' which clearly states the tool's purpose. It also enumerates specific actions (create_hosted, connect_own, funding_options) that distinguish it from siblings like wallet_status and other transactional tools.

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 gives explicit step-by-step guidance: call with no arguments first, present options verbatim, and only then invoke specific actions after operator consent. It also specifies when to use funding_options ('whenever the wallet needs sats') and that NWC_URL takes precedence, leaving no ambiguity about invocation order.

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