List API Keys

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true (safe read), openWorldHint=true (may return variable data), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context about authentication ('authenticated wallet'), which isn't in annotations, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all API keys') and adds essential context ('for the authenticated wallet'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no schema provided) and doesn't explain behavioral nuances like data freshness or error cases. For a list tool, it's functional but could be more informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully documented). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('API keys'), specifying scope ('all') and authentication context ('for the authenticated wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like dual_create_api_key (create) and dual_delete_api_key (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like dual_list_actions or dual_list_webhooks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for viewing API keys, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare to other list tools, or specify use cases like auditing or key management. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage rules.

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