create_agent_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a wallet with 'managed keys,' implying a write operation and key management, but lacks details on permissions, security implications, rate limits, or what 'management details' entail. The price mention adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details, return information, and price. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of 'Price: $1.00' as a separate line slightly disrupts flow, though it's still 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 (creating a wallet with managed keys), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like security or operational constraints. The output schema should handle return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotation context.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('agent_name' and 'agent_type') and provides semantic details: 'agent_name' is a 'Name identifier for the agent,' and 'agent_type' includes options ('trading, payment, defi, general'). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain all aspects like default values or constraints.

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: 'Create a new wallet for an AI agent with managed keys.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('wallet'), and target ('AI agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_instant_agent_wallet' by emphasizing 'managed keys.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from that sibling beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_instant_agent_wallet' or other wallet-related tools. It mentions a price ('Price: $1.00'), which hints at cost considerations, but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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