ساخت کیف‌پول رمزگذاری‌شده برای دارایی TheyPaid

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-custodial/local storage, that the recovery phrase and private key are encrypted to a local file and never returned, and the required environment secret. The notable gap is what happens on a repeat call for an already-created asset — whether it overwrites or fails — which matters for a key-material-generating operation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then prerequisite, then next step — a sensible ordering with little waste. The inline enumeration of all thirteen assets duplicates the schema enum and costs length without adding much.

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 single-parameter wallet-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, key-handling behavior, and the follow-up call. It stops short of saying what a successful response actually contains (address/xpub/path), which an agent would want before reporting back to a user.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it restates the enum values and, more importantly, explains that the asset choice determines the wallet derivation type. It does not however explain the catalog constraint precisely (must the asset already be enabled on the store?).

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?

States a specific verb and resource (creates a local non-custodial wallet) scoped to the TheyPaid store asset catalog, and enumerates the supported assets. It also distinguishes the two internal code paths (UTXO → extended public key, account-based → receive address), so an agent knows exactly what this call produces.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (THEYPAID_WALLET_PASSWORD must be set in the MCP server environment) and an explicit follow-up routing to theypaid_connect_wallet for validation and store connection after user confirmation. It does not state when NOT to use it — e.g., behavior when a wallet already exists for that asset, or whether theypaid_update_wallet is the right sibling instead.

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