fetch_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the auth prerequisite and the shape of the returned data, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether the listing is scoped beyond the authenticated wallet.

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 operation and resource, with the returned fields tucked into a compact parenthetical. No filler text and nothing redundant.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by naming the returned fields (address, label, expiry) and the auth requirement. The one substantive omission is any resolution of its overlap with the sibling `list_agents`.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies per the rubric for zero-parameter tools.

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 and resource ('List the delegated agent keys registered for the authenticated wallet') and even enumerates the returned fields (address, label, expiry). It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling `list_agents`, which appears to overlap heavily and leaves an agent guessing which to call.

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 only guidance is 'Requires API credentials,' which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. With closely-named siblings like `list_agents`, `register_agent`, and `revoke_agent` present, the description should say when this tool is preferred over `list_agents`; it does not.

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