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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (balance in native unit and approximate USD value), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool that accesses financial data.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes essential details concisely.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context for a read-only tool by explaining the return format. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or limitations, such as what happens if the bucket_id is invalid or token is unsupported.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (bucket_id and token) with descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('balance of a wallet bucket'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like wallet_list_buckets (lists buckets) and wallet_send_btc (sends funds) by focusing on balance retrieval.

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 implies usage for checking balances but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_tx_status (for transaction details) or wallet_list_buckets (for bucket information). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('List') and specifies the scope of data returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks richer behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds specific details.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what data it returns. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, potential limitations, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), this is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is valuable context. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description explains the operation's purpose and output.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all wallet buckets you have access to'), with specific details about what information is included ('balances and auto-approve limits for both BTC and USDC'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_balance (which likely shows a single balance) and wallet_send_btc/wallet_send_usdc (which are transactional tools).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'you have access to' and listing what information is returned, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_balance or wallet_tx_status. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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

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 describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this operation is read-only or mutative, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., address format specifics). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key usage note. There is no wasted text, and every sentence contributes essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of handling financial transactions and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output details (e.g., what the returned address looks like), which are crucial for a tool involving fund reception. This leaves gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool in context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (bucket_id and token) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the need to specify token type for address format, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, such as explaining the implications of bucket selection or token choices in more depth.

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 with a specific verb ('Get an address') and resource ('to receive funds into a bucket'), and it specifies the action is for receiving funds. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wallet_send_btc or wallet_send_usdc, which handle sending rather than receiving.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning 'Specify token type to get the appropriate address format,' which suggests usage based on token type. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wallet_balance or wallet_list_buckets, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality by mentioning the human approval requirement based on amount and bucket settings, and the need for a justification. This informs the agent about potential delays and permission constraints, though it could elaborate more on error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences that add critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, usage conditions, and key behavioral aspects like approval requirements. However, it could be more comprehensive by detailing potential outcomes (e.g., success/failure states) or linking to sibling tools for balance checks, leaving minor gaps in full context.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide extra examples). Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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 ('Send Bitcoin to an address') and specifies the resource ('Bitcoin'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'wallet_send_usdc' (which sends USDC) and 'wallet_receive' (which receives funds). It uses specific, unambiguous language that directly communicates the tool's function.

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 provides clear context for usage by stating 'May require human approval depending on amount and bucket settings' and 'Always provide a clear justification,' which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'wallet_send_usdc' for USDC transfers) or specify when not to use it, such as for checking balances or receiving funds.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool sends USDC, may require human approval depending on amount, and USDC is stable-value. However, it lacks details on network specifics (implied by address parameter), error conditions, or what happens after approval. This is adequate but has gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by contextual details. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and key constraint, the second explains USDC's utility. Zero waste and appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (financial transaction with human approval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and key behavior but lacks details on return values, error handling, or network-specific nuances. It's adequate but could be more comprehensive for safe use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain bucket_id or justification further). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Send USDC'), identifies the resource ('stablecoin'), and distinguishes from siblings like wallet_send_btc by specifying USDC. It goes beyond the name/title by explaining USDC's nature as a stablecoin ideal for stable-value payments.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('stable-value payments') and mentions human approval dependency on amount, which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like wallet_send_btc or when not to use it (e.g., for non-stable transfers).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks transaction status but doesn't describe what 'status' entails (e.g., pending, confirmed, failed), potential latency, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check the status of a transaction'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the status check returns (e.g., success/failure states, confirmation details), which is a notable gap for a tool that likely provides critical feedback on transaction outcomes.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'transaction_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The transaction ID returned from wallet_send_btc or wallet_send_usdc.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a transaction'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like wallet_send_btc or wallet_send_usdc), which also involve transactions but for sending rather than checking status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction ID from a previous send operation), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like wallet_send_btc or wallet_send_usdc, which generate the transaction IDs this tool checks.

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