wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes well beyond a basic description by warning that the password is the only way to access the wallet, funds are UNRECOVERABLE if the password is lost, and transfers are IRREVERSIBLE. It also notes that transfer shows a warning before sending, and specifies which actions require a password, offering important safety-related behavioral context.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-line overview, includes a critical security warning in bold caps, and then presents a bulleted list of actions. Every sentence adds value: the warning is essential for safe usage, and the action list is necessary for a multi-action tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 (4 parameters, 5 actions, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what each action does, password requirements, and irreversible operations. The lack of an output schema is compensated by action names that implicitly indicate return values (e.g., 'Get your wallet address' implies returning an address, 'Check your ETH balance' implies returning a number). It does not explicitly describe response formats or error handling, but the critical behavioral information is present.

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 schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping each action to its required parameters (e.g., 'create: Create a new wallet (requires password you'll remember forever)', 'transfer: Send ETH to another address (IRREVERSIBLE...)'). This clarifies the relationship between action and parameters beyond the schema's flat 'required for' notes, though it does not go into format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Manage your local Ethereum wallet.' It enumerates five concrete actions (create, get, balance, transfer, collect-fees), each with a brief explanation. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like info, my-fees, and launch, which address different functionalities.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, stating it 'receives your trading fees and signs transactions.' The action list further clarifies usage by specifying which actions require a password or are irreversible. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use my-fees to view fees'), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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