generate_readonly_link

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the token creation is a mutable operation (issuer-side record). It adds behavioral details: token returned once, hash-only storage, revocation semantics. Minor gap: not stating that generating a token is non-reversible beyond revocation.

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 longer than optimal but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and proceeds through use case, token properties, security model, and related tools. Slightly verbose, but no 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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the entire workflow: generate, share, import, query; explains token security (sha256, public data); and references sibling tools for revocation and listing. The agent can confidently use this tool.

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 description explains all four parameters in detail: wallets (with chain-specific regex validation), scope (read-portfolio only), expiresIn (with defaults), and name (auto-default pattern). Since the schema has 0% coverage, the description fully compensates, even clarifying the wallet structure.

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: generating a time-bound, revocable token for read-only access to specific wallets. It distinguishes this from similar tools by emphasizing that it creates a shareable token rather than performing direct reads. The mention of the classic use case with a financial advisor further solidifies clarity.

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 explains when to use the tool (granting temporary read-only access) and mentions related tools like import_readonly_token and revoke_readonly_invite. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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