import_readonly_token

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

The description claims the tool is 'Read-only — no signing, no broadcast,' but annotations set `readOnlyHint: false`, indicating it may modify state. This is a direct contradiction, so transparency scores 1 as per rules.

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 paragraph of 6 sentences, but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return fields (`wallets, scope, name, issuedAt, expiresAt, id`), explains the intended usage pattern, error behavior, and storage characteristics. This is complete for a decoding 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 input schema only specifies a string parameter without description. The description adds crucial semantic information: the token can be a raw `vp1.…` string or a URL with `?t=` or `#t=` parameter. This compensates for the 0% 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 states the tool's purpose: decoding a `vp1.…` read-only share token into a wallet bundle. It specifies input formats (raw token or URL with parameter) and output structure. It distinguishes from siblings like `generate_readonly_link` and subsequent `get_*` tools.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool (when a read-only token is received) and what to do after (use standard portfolio reads). It also covers error handling for expired tokens and notes that the tool is read-only and stores nothing. This provides clear usage guidance.

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