list_bridge_wallets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses chain-agnostic EVM address behavior, the 'at most one wallet' invariant in this cut, the constant values of verified and is_default, the intent to vary those fields later, and the meaning of an empty wallets array. This is substantial context beyond a generic 'list' command.

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?

The first sentence is a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose. Every subsequent sentence contributes meaningful operational context, but the explanation around verified and is_default could be tightened without losing information. Still, the description is appropriately sized for the amount of caveat it conveys.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the account scope, chain behavior, current field invariants, empty-array semantics, follow-up tools, and authentication requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret its result correctly.

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 input parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies. The field-level details in the description concern output semantics, not input semantics, so they don't affect this score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the authenticated account's registered withdrawal wallets.' It further distinguishes this tool from sibling wallet-management tools by clarifying that these are withdrawal wallets and by framing create/register wallet tools as follow-ups rather than alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to list registered withdrawal wallets) and what to do when the list is empty: use create_bridge_wallet_challenge then register_bridge_wallet. It also tells the agent not to branch on verified or is_default in the current cut and notes the API credentials requirement. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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