list_wallets

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description usefully adds that results are scoped to the authenticated user, implying authentication is required. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or whether wallet balances are included in each entry, which matters given get_balance is a sibling.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the key scoping fact (owner = authenticated user) is front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it says what is listed and whose wallets. A short note on whether balances are included or how large listings are handled would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the schema. The description correctly does not invent any filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 ('List') and resource ('wallets') and adds a scope qualifier ('owned by the authenticated user') that separates it from a global wallet listing. It implicitly contrasts with create_wallet, but never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must rely on the names to route.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration call for wallets, versus get_balance for a single balance or list_transactions for activity. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, and no guidance on whether to call this before get_balance.

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