check_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 clearly signals a non-mutative query by using 'Returns' and 'reports' and lists exactly what data is exposed. It doesn't explicitly say 'does not modify state,' but the wording and the 'check' name make the read-only behavior clear.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the primary return values stated first and the additional minting capacity note second. Every word adds meaning; no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload (address, balances, allowance, mintable count). An agent has everything it needs to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly omits it.

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 begins with 'Returns the configured wallet address' and then enumerates four specific outputs: $ASH balance, $ASH allowance for Ashfields, ETH balance, and max mintable tokens. This gives a precise verb and resource and clearly distinguishes it from the mutation-oriented siblings (mint_ashfield, approve_ash, trigger_distribute).

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 conveys a clear usage context: call this whenever you need the configured wallet's balances or allowance/minting capacity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature and specific outputs make the appropriate usage obvious.

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