apiosk_show_wallet_funding

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it shows a QR code, defaults to the first managed wallet, and always reminds the buyer about the USDC Base mainnet requirement.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place: the core behavior, the defaulting rule, and the required user reminder. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

Complete for a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. It explains what the buyer sees, why it exists, how the wallet is selected, and the network requirement—everything needed to invoke and present the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the wallet_id parameter is already fully documented. The description repeats the defaulting behavior but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states a specific action: show the buyer's wallet address with a scannable QR code for manual funding. It includes the network (Base mainnet) and asset (USDC), which fully differentiates it from sibling wallet tools like listing or selecting wallets.

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?

Provides clear context: use this when the buyer needs to fund the wallet manually from another wallet or exchange. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the manual-funding purpose is unambiguous.

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