get_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'View' signals a read operation and the description enumerates what data is included, but it does not explicitly state the endpoint is side-effect-free, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or response format quirks.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetitive phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity, a one-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers the core return categories (balance, earnings, spending, transactions). It ends slightly short of a 5 by not addressing whether there are pagination limits or explicit no-side-effect guarantees, but those are secondary for a read-only wallet query.

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 only parameter, api_key, is fully described in the schema as 'Your Crowns API key', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but nothing is needed beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('View') and a clear resource ('your USDC balance, earnings, spending, and transaction history'). It is unambiguous about what data the tool exposes and distinct from sibling getter tools like get_inventory or get_kingdom_status.

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 implies the tool is used when the agent needs an account's USDC financial details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or routing guidance. No sibling tool is mentioned, so use-case context remains implicit.

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