Register DUAL Wallet

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation with open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that a verification code will be sent, which clarifies the workflow and potential side effects. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error conditions, but with annotations covering core traits, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('Create a new wallet account') and immediately follow with critical behavioral context (verification code). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (account creation with verification), annotations provide good coverage of behavioral traits, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds key workflow context (verification code sent), which is crucial for understanding next steps. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., success response or error handling), leaving a minor gap.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., email, password with min length). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for email/phone or nickname usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('Create a new wallet account') and resource ('wallet'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_login' or 'dual_get_wallet' by focusing on account creation rather than authentication or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dual_register_verify', which handles verification, leaving some room for improvement.

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 implies usage for initial account setup by mentioning verification code delivery, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_login' for existing users or 'dual_register_verify' for completing verification. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether email or phone must be verified first.

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