get_user_by_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes support for multiple chains, which is helpful, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., wallet not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. As a read operation, this is acceptable but still lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key differentiators (supported chains). There is no wasted text; every part contributes to clarity.

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 has only one required parameter and an output schema (presumed present), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the input type, and the supported chains. It lacks mention of return values, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly describes the wallet_address parameter through the supported chains, but does not specify format, case sensitivity, or examples. The added chain context provides some value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Query and retrieve user information by blockchain wallet address.' It specifies the supported blockchains (Ethereum, Solana, Bitcoin, EVM-compatible chains), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (likely by user ID) or list_users.

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 indicates the tool should be used when you have a wallet address and need associated user info. The sibling tools suggest alternatives (e.g., get_user for user IDs), but the description does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other wallet-related tools.

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