get_invited_wallets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a system-level operation for invite management, but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, rate limits, or return characteristics beyond the fact that it is a read operation. This is a significant gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, and the second adds context ('System-level operation'). Every piece of text has a function.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format, pagination, or what 'recently updated' means for the 'only_updated' parameter. An agent would need to infer the response shape, which is a moderate 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('chain_id' and 'only_updated'). The description adds the qualifier 'for a specific chain,' which aligns with the schema. However, no additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves invited wallet addresses for a specific chain. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Get invited wallet addresses') and qualifies with 'for a specific chain' and 'System-level operation for invite management.' This differentiates it from sibling 'get_invited_wallets_by_token', though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_invited_wallets_by_token' or other user-level tools. The phrase 'System-level operation' hints at administrative context but provides no exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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