nano_walletCheck whether sending is enabled, find the wallet address to fund, and review balance, daily limits, and remaining send allowance without exposing the seed.
The scoped send wallet: whether sending is on, its address (fund it here), balance, limits and what is left in the last 24 hours. Never the seed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two real behavioral facts: the wallet is 'scoped' to sending, and the seed is 'never' returned. That security disclosure is genuinely useful. It still omits whether the call is read-only, what auth it needs, or the return shape, so it falls short of full transparency.
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, front-loaded with the scope ('The scoped send wallet') before the field list, with no filler. Slightly dense/list-like, but every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return contents, and it does: sending-enabled flag, address, balance, limits, and 24-hour remaining amount, plus the seed exclusion. The only material gap is the absence of routing guidance against overlapping siblings.
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 semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments.
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 identifies the resource ('the scoped send wallet') and enumerates what it exposes (address, balance, limits, 24h remaining, whether sending is on), so an agent can infer it is a read of wallet state. However, there is no explicit verb — it is a noun phrase, not 'Get/Retrieve the send wallet' — and it does not distinguish itself from sibling nano_balance or nano_account_info, which plausibly overlap.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (nano_balance, nano_account_info, nano_send). The agent must guess whether this is the right call for balance or wallet-config questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.