df_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does disclose the key traits: the call is 'Free' (no charge against the wallet despite showing spend), it is a read/'Show' operation, and the response contents are enumerated. It omits auth requirements (e.g., whether a configured wallet is required) and any error behavior when no session exists.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the cost qualifier ('Free.') that matters most before an agent spends a call budget. Every phrase maps to either a constraint or a returned field; nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description must convey return contents, and it lists all three. For a zero-parameter diagnostic read this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is failure/empty-wallet conditions rather than core behavior.

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?

Zero input parameters, so per baseline this scores 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly does not invent parameter discussion.

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?

States a concrete verb ('show') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: paying wallet address, spending caps, and session spend. It is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling catalog/search/status tools, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect the wallet behind paid x402 calls or to check remaining spend. There is no explicit when-to-use, no preconditions, and no named alternative, so the routing signal relies on inference.

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