get_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation by listing returned fields, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The behavior is clear but 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 concise sentence followed by a succinct list of return fields. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 (1 parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the main purpose and return values. It lacks error handling or ID format notes, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation.

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 single parameter wallet_id is mentioned in the description ('by wallet ID'), giving basic context. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description does not add format or constraint details (e.g., length, pattern) beyond what the schema implies. This is minimal compensation.

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 retrieves wallet details by ID and lists the returned fields (address, chain type, timestamps, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_wallet_balance and get_wallet_transactions by focusing on full wallet metadata.

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 the tool is used when complete wallet information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_wallet_balance or get_wallet_transactions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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