wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: the 60-second timeout for status, that execute handles multi-step flows automatically, that private keys never leave the device, and the blocking nature of status. It could improve by mentioning error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with purpose and actions, but includes lengthy bash command examples and installation instructions that could be separated. While informative, some sections (like the full python code) are verbose for a tool description.

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 complex tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: workflow sequences, parameter requirements, behavioral details, and integration instructions. It lacks explicit output descriptions but compensates with procedural guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when parameters are required (chainIds for 'pair', steps for 'execute') and providing context about the steps array ('Contains all steps to execute in order'), elevating it above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Connect a user's wallet via WalletConnect' with specific actions (pair, status, execute, disconnect). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on wallet connection and transaction execution rather than quoting, estimating, or querying data.

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 usage guidelines including a 'Typical flow' section (pair → render QR → status → execute_bridge → execute → get_transaction_status), when to call each action, and prerequisites like requiring chainIds for 'pair' and steps for 'execute'. It also specifies the critical sequence after calling pair.

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