apiosk_list_wallets

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating the auth requirement and limiting results to 'the signed-in user's managed' wallets. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the auth requirement in the second is valuable. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description is largely complete, providing the key auth prerequisite. The only substantial gap is the lack of differentiation from the similarly named sibling apiosk_wallet_list, which could leave an agent uncertain about which tool to invoke.

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 has 100% description coverage, so there is essentially nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no extraneous parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the signed-in user's managed Apiosk wallets') and clearly states scope ('managed' and 'signed-in user's'). However, it does not differentiate from the near-identically named sibling tool apiosk_wallet_list, so an agent could confuse the two.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires an Apiosk dashboard session from local env auth or hosted MCP authorization'), which gives some usage context. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the similarly named apiosk_wallet_list or other wallet-related siblings, so alternatives are not addressed.

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