create_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses one-time secret visibility, that the server persists the key in the Nexus CLI config for the session, that `secret` returns redacted with `saved_to` naming the file, and the fallback where an unsaved secret is returned in full and must be stored immediately. These behaviors are non-obvious and materially affect correct invocation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — key purpose, session retention, the two secret-return paths, and auth. It is dense and front-loaded, though the middle sentences are somewhat compressed and require careful reading.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description specifies the return shape (`secret`, `saved_to`), the two possible secret states, and the authentication prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle the response.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add or clarify. The schema is empty and consistent with the description's no-argument usage.

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 specific verb+resource ('Create a new HMAC API key') and the scope ('for the authenticated wallet'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_api_keys and delete_api_key. An agent can identify the operation without reading any schema.

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?

Explains the payoff context — the stdio server keeps the key so account and trading tools work right away — and names the auth source (session token from `login` or NEXUS_EXCHANGE_SESSION_TOKEN). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with create_ws_token or stating when an agent should prefer/avoid creating a key.

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