add_wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'associate a wallet address', which indicates a write action, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the association is replaceable, or any requirements. The description adds little beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Associate'. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Although the tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on sequencing (e.g., should it be called before deposit?), idempotency, or what the result of a successful call is. Given the absence of annotations, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (api_key and wallet_address). The tool description does not add any new parameter-level detail beyond the deposit context, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Associate') and the resource ('a wallet address with your account'), and it ties the purpose to prepaid USDC deposits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deposit and register by specifying the context.

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 phrase 'for prepaid USDC deposits' implies that this tool is a prerequisite to depositing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no direct guidance on ordering or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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