wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers encryption at rest (scrypt + AES-256-GCM), auto-generated password storage (macOS Keychain or 0600 key file), non-interactive operation, and the two-step transfer approval flow. This is comprehensive and proactively surfaces important behaviors.

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?

Three sentences tightly pack purpose, security details, and a critical workflow nuance. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the tool's function, the second explains persistence/security without fluff, and the third details the required transfer approval process. No wasted 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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: actions, security model, and workflow. It doesn't explain return values, but that's less critical for a wallet tool, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention dry_run's purpose explicitly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the 'confirm' parameter's role in the two-step approval flow and explaining that 'password' is an override to an auto-generated stored password. This enriches the otherwise schema-only definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Manage the project's local encrypted Solana wallet' followed by the concrete actions (create, status, balance, transfer SOL). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'collect-fees' or 'launch' by specifying the wallet management scope.

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 workflow guidance for transfers: call once without confirm to preview, then call again with confirm: true after approval. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, but the action enum and context make the intended usage clear.

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