create_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the wallet is generated locally (implying no network call), the seed is the only access method, and activation requires a deposit. It does not mention potential error behavior or side effects, but for a generation tool the disclosed context is substantial.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose and outputs, and the second sentence adds critical warnings (activation deposit and seed security). Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the needed context: it returns the address and seed, activation requirement, and security advice. It does not explain return format details or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'algorithm' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 clearly states 'Generate a new PFTL wallet locally', which is a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('PFTL wallet'), and a scope ('locally'). It also specifies the outputs ('wallet address and seed'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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?

Although no sibling tools are listed, the description provides actionable usage guidance: the wallet must receive a minimum deposit to be activated, and the seed must be saved securely. This tells the user when and how the tool is used (i.e., it creates a wallet that requires activation and seed custody), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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