wallet_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the tool being free ("FREE.") and what it returns (wallet status and address), which goes beyond what annotations state. No contradictions found.

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 extremely concise: two short sentence fragments that immediately convey cost, purpose, and usage context. Every word adds value: "FREE.", the status/address purpose, and the "call first" guidance. It is front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers cost, purpose, return value, and a concrete use case. Sibling tools are clearly different, and annotations cover safety, so no additional context is necessary.

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 there is no parameter schema to enrich. The description mentions the address as part of the output, but no input parameters are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add anything needed here.

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 states that the tool reports whether a payment wallet is configured and its address, giving a specific purpose. "Whether a payment wallet is configured for this MCP server, and its address" distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_settlement_assets or get_crypto_spot, which focus on other financial aspects. The verb is implicit but unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: "Call this first if a paid tool reports it cannot pay." This provides clear when-to-use guidance and positions the tool as a diagnostic first step. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple status check, this is sufficient context.

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