register_bridge_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: one permanent wallet per account, refusal with 409 for a different address, idempotency for re-registering the same address, permanent consequences, and detailed error semantics. This fully discloses the mutation's behavior and side effects.

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 description is long but each sentence carries operational value: sequencing, permanence, idempotency, error handling, and auth requirements. It is appropriately front-loaded. Minor redundancy with the already-rich parameter schema descriptions keeps it from a 5.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, sequencing, exact input semantics, permanent side effects, error handling, retry guidance, and credential requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke this tool 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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds one genuinely new constraint: the challenge must name the authenticated account. Other parameter details are largely reinforced rather than newly explained, but this edge above baseline is enough for a 4.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Step 2 of registering a withdrawal wallet' and specifies the exact payload: address, message, and EIP-191 signature. It differentiates itself from create_bridge_wallet_challenge by framing this as the follow-up submission step.

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?

It explicitly sequences the tool relative to the challenge endpoint, states the hard precondition that confirm must be true, warns that 503 errors are non-transient and should not be retried, and names the API credentials requirement. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-retry guidance.

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