wallet_addressCheck which wallet will fund Ordinal marketplace payments and whether a key is configured, so you can confirm readiness before a paid call.
Reports which wallet this bridge will pay from, and whether a key is configured at all. Useful before a paid call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Reports' signals a read-only operationaine and 'whether a key is configured at all' discloses that it inspects key state. It does not mention potential errors or whether it makes network calls, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a practical usage hint. No fluff or repetition.
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 read-only check, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what it reports and when to use it. It doesn't specify the return format, but with no output schema and a trivial query, this is sufficient.
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, so the schema is complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed; baseline for no parameters is 4.
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 ('Reports') and a clear resource (the wallet/key for this bridge), which distinguishes it from siblings like try_service, get_service_details, and check_payment_status. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 sentence 'Useful before a paid call' explicitly indicates when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide to call it prior to any chargeable sibling operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.