q402_agentic_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only nature, authentication via Multichain API key with no private key required, default wallet behavior when walletId is omitted, and the scope of 12 supported EVM chains. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it doesn't mention error cases or data freshness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, what it returns, auth, parameter, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. While a bit dense, it avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return content, auth, parameter default, and usage triggers. It explains the byChain breakdown and the constraint to USDC/USDT across 12 chains. It does not define 'archive state' or 'per-tx and daily caps' in detail, but these are reasonably self-explanatory. Overall, it is complete for a read-only introspection tool.

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% for the single walletId parameter, and the schema already explains optionality, lowercase address, and default resolution. The tool description merely restates this as 'optional walletId for owners who hold more than one wallet; omit to use the server-default wallet', adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool is 'Read-only Agent Wallet introspection' and enumerates specific return values: wallet address, per-tx and daily caps, archive state, aggregate USD balance, and per-chain breakdown. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting the per-chain breakdown across 12 EVM chains and the use case 'before routing a payment', which differentiates it from tools like q402_balance or q402_wallet_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 provides explicit trigger phrases: "Use this whenever the user asks 'what's in my agent wallet?', 'how much do I have on Base / on each chain?', or 'what's the spending limit?'" This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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