explain-my-wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently states that it returns 'checks you can run yourself' rather than performing the checks, which clarifies its non-destructive, advisory nature. It also explains that it takes optional hints, setting expectations for input behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether it scans the environment automatically or relies solely on 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?

The description is two sentences, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value: the scope, the output, and the optional input. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It covers the input hints and the type of output (checks to run and their meaning). The only minor gap is the lack of clarification on the default behavior when no hints are provided, but this is not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the two optional parameters with descriptions. The description only adds a general reference to 'hints about your setup', which does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter descriptions. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Explains') and clearly identifies the resource (the user's wallets in their current environment) and the scope (chains and capabilities). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'what-is-a-wallet' by focusing on the user's specific environment rather than generic wallet concepts.

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 implies usage ('Explains what wallet(s) you have access to') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'what-is-a-wallet' or 'get-a-wallet'. It does mention that hints are optional, which gives some input guidance, but lacks clear exclusions or alternative tool references.

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