use-wallet-from-creation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'use wallet data' without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., wallet already created), error conditions, or what the tool actually does with the data (e.g., sets current wallet?). This lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second provides benefit. Excellent conciseness.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, and the tool having 4 parameters (3 required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what success looks like, possible errors, or how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., after using, what operations can be performed?). An agent would need more context to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'wallet data' and 'avoid re-uploading files' without elaborating on parameter details like what constitutes a valid walletCreationResult or how token/testnet are used.

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 states the tool uses wallet data from a previous creation result, avoiding re-uploading files. The verb 'use' is slightly vague but combined with the context it's clear the tool is for reusing existing wallet data. It distinguishes from siblings like create-wallet and check-balance.

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 to avoid re-uploading files, suggesting it should be used when a wallet creation result is available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like create-wallet. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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