pair_ledger_live

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true) indicate safe repetition, but description adds that the session persists for future transactions. It does not explicitly address whether calling again creates a new session or returns an existing one, yet provides meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and return, second specifies chain limitation and alternative.

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?

For a simple pairing tool with no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return value, usage context, and alternative tool. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so description carries no burden for parameter documentation. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 it initiates a WalletConnect v2 pairing session with Ledger Live, returns a URI and ASCII QR code, and explicitly distinguishes from a sibling (pair_ledger_tron) by specifying EVM-only usage.

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?

Provides explicit when to use (EVM chains) and when not (for TRON use pair_ledger_tron). Also describes the paste-into-Ledger-Live workflow, giving clear context for correct invocation.

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