import_readonly_token

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states 'Read-only — no signing, no broadcast,' mentions that 'v1 stores nothing recipient-side,' and describes error behavior for expired tokens. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering input format, output, usage, errors, and statefulness in a few sentences without unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema, the description documents the return fields. It addresses error handling, persistent storage, and integration with other tools, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 only defines a string parameter with no description. The description compensates by specifying that the token can be a raw string or a URL with a '?t=vp1...' or '#t=vp1...' parameter, providing crucial usage details.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: decoding a read-only share token into wallet data. It specifies the input (raw token or URL with parameter), output fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_readonly_link.

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 (when a read-only token is available) and what to do with the result (use wallet addresses for portfolio reads). It also notes error handling for expired tokens. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives or when not to use it.

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