spraay_agent_wallet_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the cost ($0.005 USDC per call) and the input style ('pass fields directly as typed arguments'). However, it does not discuss behavior on invalid inputs, rate limits, or response specifics, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and key attributes (cost, read-only). Every sentence provides some value, though the lack of detail on purpose and parameters prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete. It mentions cost and safety, but lacks context on when to use it among many wallet-related siblings and does not describe the output or prerequisites.

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 100% coverage with one parameter 'address' described only as 'address parameter'. The description adds 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments', which is a usage instruction rather than semantic clarification. It does not explain what type of address (e.g., blockchain, agent wallet ID) is expected, so the agent gains little extra meaning.

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 says 'Agent wallet info' which is vague and lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'get'). It implies the tool provides information about an agent wallet, but the action is not explicitly stated. The added context of cost and read-only helps slightly, but the core purpose is unclear compared to siblings like 'spraay_agent_wallet_predict' which has a clearer verb.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spraay_agent_wallet_predict' or 'spraay_agent_wallet_provision'. The description only states 'Read-only' and 'Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments', which are not usage guidelines for selecting the tool.

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