create_balance_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the asynchronous lifecycle, the initial 'creating' state, and that repeat calls during flight are safe. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or failure semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the async contract, then the retry safety. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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 one-parameter async creation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it makes, that the result is deferred, which sibling to poll, and that retries are safe. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single 'network' parameter has a documented enum, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'on a network' without adding format or selection meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create the deposit wallet') plus its purpose ('tops up your balance on a network'). It also names the related sibling get_balance_wallet, so an agent can distinguish this creation tool from the read tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: creation is asynchronous, the first answer is 'creating', and the agent should poll get_balance_wallet until 'active'. It also states the retry condition ('safe to call again while creation is in flight'), covering both the follow-up action and idempotent re-invocation.

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