list_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists wallets with pagination and returns specified fields, but omits details on safety (read-only), rate limits, error behavior, or default ordering. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 two sentences, efficiently communicating the core purpose and return data. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing return fields separately), it is concise without unnecessary content.

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 (list with pagination), the description covers the main purpose and return data. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and usage guidance, which are necessary for complete contextual understanding. The output schema exists but is not shown; if it fully documents the return structure, the description's completeness improves marginally.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elucidate the 'limit' or 'cursor' parameters. It only mentions pagination generically, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the schema strictly. The description adds no value beyond what the schema type hints provide.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'wallets', which is clear and unambiguous. It also states the return fields (addresses, chain types, metadata), differentiating it from single-wallet retrieval and user listing.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wallet or list_users. However, the verb 'List all' and the sibling context imply it is for enumerating all wallets, making the usage contextually clear but not formally guided.

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