wallet_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses stateful first-call baseline behavior and cursor reuse, blockchain source, cost ($0.003 USDC/call), p99 latency, and the USDC-always-included guarantee. This is unusually rich operational 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers mechanism, use cases, chains, params, and cost/latency. Every sentence is informative, though the parenthetical-heavy style and inline param enumeration make it denser than strictly necessary.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (balance deltas, outgoing tx count, cursor), the supported chains, cost, and latency — everything an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: cursor semantics (omit on first call), tokens as extra ERC-20 contracts with a 10-item cap, and min_change_pct as a balance-move threshold. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('watch an EVM address') and precise scope: only deltas since the last call, native + token balances, outgoing tx count. This clearly separates it from snapshot-style siblings like evm_balance and from wallet_portfolio.

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?

Names concrete use cases (treasury/payment tracking, whale and smart-money watching, deposit detection) and explains the cursor model for repeat polling. It gives clear context but never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest alternatives (evm_balance, wallet_portfolio, the other *_watch tools).

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