get_provider_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get...') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or other side effects. It adequately discloses the output type but lacks some behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without any extraneous words. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description lists three key outputs (provider name, supported chains, gas sponsorship status), which is sufficient for a simple status retrieval. It could mention that the response is for the given wallet, but that is implied by the input parameter.

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 description coverage is 100% (wallet_id is fully described in schema). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the wallet_id's role in the context of provider status. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Smart Account provider status' and lists specific outputs (provider name, supported chains, gas sponsorship status). This distinguishes it from siblings, none of which mention 'provider'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to retrieve provider status for a smart account). No explicit alternatives are given, but given its unique focus, no sibling overlaps, so usage context is clear.

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