apiosk_wallet_reveal_secret

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral guardrail about explicit user consent, which is not inferable from the annotations. It also clarifies the scope ('local wallet') rather than remote or cloud wallets, though it does not elaborate on the sensitivity/security implications of exposing a private key.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is stated first, followed by a critical usage restriction. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what wallet scope it applies to, and when it is appropriate to call it. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage for wallet_id, and the tool description does not explicitly define the parameter. However, the phrase 'local wallet's private key' and the tool name make it clear that wallet_id identifies the local wallet whose secret should be revealed. This is sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter, but the description still relies on inference rather than explicit documentation.

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 ('reveal') and resource ('a local wallet's private key'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling wallet tools, particularly apiosk_wallet_save_secret, by focusing on reading/exposing the secret rather than storing it.

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 an explicit condition for use: 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks to see the secret key.' This gives the agent a clear gatekeeping rule and implicitly warns against calling it in other contexts, which is especially important for a sensitive secret-revealing operation.

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