bridge_get_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, the need for both customer_id and wallet_id, or what happens if the wallet is not found. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read action.

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 a single, focused sentence, 'Get a wallet by ID,' which is direct and free of unnecessary details. It effectively communicates the core action with high efficiency, scoring well on conciseness even if it lacks depth.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It fails to explain why both customer_id and wallet_id are required, what the response contains, or any prerequisites. The minimal description leaves the agent with only the raw schema to infer usage, which is inadequate for a tool with these parameters.

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 provides basic descriptions for both parameters (wallet_id, customer_id). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the role of customer_id (e.g., scoping or authorization) or how the parameters interact, but does not need to repeat what the schema already says.

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 action (get) and resource (wallet) with a lookup key (by ID), indicating a single-item retrieval. It is distinct from list operations like bridge_list_wallets, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, so it slightly misses the highest level of differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bridge_list_wallets or bridge_get_customer. The description only repeats the tool's basic function without providing contextual criteria, prerequisites, or common use cases.

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