create_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the wallet is randomly generated and includes a private key and address, but it omits details such as whether the private key is persisted, security considerations, or any chain-specific behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the action and expected output. Every word is necessary, with no filler or extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, but the description leaves out crucial context such as which blockchain or network the wallet is for, and it does not specify the return format (e.g., address type). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it only gives a brief phrase. This is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, and no further explanation is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a new random wallet and outputs the private key and address. The verb 'Create' and specific resource 'new random wallet' make the action unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like generate_mnemonic or import_wallet_from_mnemonic.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The purpose is self-evident from the name and description, but an agent deciding between this and wallet-related siblings (e.g., creating a wallet from a mnemonic) would need more context. Usage is implied but not directly stated.

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