generate_readonly_link

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

While the description adds useful behavioral details (token returned once, only sha256 stored, read-only), it contradicts the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation by stating 'Read-only — no signing, no broadcast.' This contradiction forces a score of 1 per guidelines.

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, starting with purpose, then use case, parameter details, security model, related tools, and a final read-only note. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, contradictory annotations), the description fully covers functionality, parameter details, security model, and ecosystem integration. It explains return behavior and limits, meeting all contextual needs.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by detailing all parameters: wallets (with per-chain regex validation), name (auto-defaults to share-XXXX), expiresIn (enum defaults to 24h), and scope (read-portfolio only). It also explains the single-use token return.

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 explicitly states the tool generates a time-bound, revocable token for read-only access to wallets. It specifies the resource (token), action (generate), and audience (financial advisor). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like import_readonly_token, revoke_readonly_invite, and list_readonly_invites.

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 when-to-use guidance: delegating read access without signing. It states when not to rely on it as a security boundary and explains revocation limits. It also references alternatives for the recipient (import_readonly_token) and issuer (revoke_readonly_invite).

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