fetch_api_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that secrets are never returned and how authentication works, but it omits read-only explicitness, pagination behavior, rate limits, and ordering.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The primary listing behavior and security constraint are front-loaded, with authentication details following immediately.

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-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned content, secret exclusion, and authentication. It lacks sibling differentiation and pagination or limit details, but the core invocation needs are addressed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema offers no additional parameter semantics to document or explain.

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 (List) and resource (HMAC API keys for the authenticated wallet), and clarifies the returned fields as key ids and metadata. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_api_keys, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by scoping the result to the authenticated wallet and supplies an authentication prerequisite (session token from login or NEXUS_EXCHANGE_SESSION_TOKEN). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against key-listing siblings like list_api_keys.

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