Create an API key

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the 201 status, the exact response shape, that the key is shown only once and must be stored, the balance requirements (10 USDG or 0.004 ETH on Robinhood Chain), the 3-keys-per-wallet cap, and the 400 condition. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent cannot infer from hints.

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?

Extremely information-dense with no filler: step position and return shape are front-loaded, followed by the storage warning and error codes. The error-code clauses are compact but slightly stacked, keeping it just short of perfect.

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?

With no output schema, the description still fully specifies the return payload and status code. Combined with the balance and rate-limit constraints, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: wallet must be the same one used in trnch_register_message, message must be passed unchanged, and the wallet must hold specific balances. Only the optional 'label' parameter is not elaborated on in prose, which the schema handles.

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?

States a specific two-step registration action ('Step 2 of 2: send the message from trnch_register_message and its signature') and names the exact return payload { key, prefix, wallet }. The dependency on trnch_register_message makes it immediately distinguishable from every sibling.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as the second step and points to trnch_register_message as the prerequisite, so the agent knows the ordering. It also enumerates the failure conditions (402, 409, 400), though it doesn't say what to do on those errors or when not to call it.

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