wallet_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: 'Costs nothing and spends nothing' explicitly discloses that invocation has no monetary or spend effect. The word 'Report' also signals a read-only operation, and the note about where funding problems show up adds useful behavioral context.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output contents, and the second adds essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only status tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states what is returned, when to read it first, and that it has no cost or side effects. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool; no parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource as the wallet's state, enumerating the exact contents: network, vault address, balances, active session, spending, and caps. It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wallet_funding_info, which may overlap on balances and vault details.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Read this before assuming a payment can be made.' It explains why that matters by noting unfunded or non-opted-in vaults cannot pay. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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