provision_contract_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses key behavioral traits: security (private keys stay in KMS), cost structure ($0.04/day rental + per-call fee), and prerequisite ($1.20 credit). However, it omits what happens after creation (e.g., return value, wallet ID), how to use the wallet for signing, and auto-deletion behavior (only in schema). It provides useful context but not full transparency.

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 brief (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant language. Every sentence adds value (purpose, security, cost, prerequisite).

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?

Missing details expected for a creation tool: no mention of return format (e.g., wallet address, ID), no guidance on how to subsequently use the wallet for signing, and no coverage of auto-deletion policy (only in schema param). Given moderate complexity and no output schema, the description should be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning beyond what is in the schema. For the 'chain' parameter, cost info appears in both the schema and description, but not additional semantic value.

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 verb 'provision' and the resource 'AWS KMS-backed Ethereum wallet', specifying its purpose for signing smart-contract write transactions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_contract_wallet' or 'contract_read'.

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 mentions cost and prerequisites but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use list_contract_wallets to see existing'). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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