check_wallet

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description expands substantially on what the agent can expect: reputation tier, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, buyer retention, other rails, and the shared_wallet caveat. It also implicitly explains the tool's informational, non-mutating nature by framing it as a guard before payment.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently packs relevant behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: pre-payment use, return content, rail semantics, shared_wallet hazard, and the risk warning. It could be tightened slightly, but all content is useful.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a thorough mental model of what will be returned, including reputation, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, customer-retention metrics, other settlement rails, and the shared_wallet meaning. It is complete for an agent to know exactly when this tool answers and how to interpret its result.

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 100% for the single pay_to parameter, including format for EVM and Solana addresses. The description adds crucial semantic detail beyond the schema: pay_to is the service-provided settlement address, and the tool will return wallet reputation across settlement rails. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service and find_paid_service by targeting the wallet of the service, not the service itself. It also states exactly what it returns.

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 gives explicit usage context: pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay and do this before payment. It also gives decision guidance, such as treating shared_wallet results with care and pausing for unknown/low-reputation recipients. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools, but the sibling tools are not relevant alternatives for wallet checks.

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