get_wallet_info

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 effectively describes the tool's function and scope (read-only data retrieval for wallet status), but lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the token parameter's purpose, but does not fully compensate for the absence of 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific usage guidance. Both sentences are essential—the first defines scope, the second explains parameter usage—with zero redundant or vague language, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly explains what the tool does and parameter usage, but lacks details on output structure, error conditions, or dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, the description does not fully compensate for these missing elements, making it minimally viable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the token parameter is used 'to check budget for a specific ERC20' and defaults to ETH, which clarifies the semantic purpose beyond the schema's technical specification. This elevates the score above the baseline.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive wallet information') and enumerates the exact data returned (address, on-chain balance, spend limits, remaining period allowance, queue depth). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transaction_history' (historical data) or 'check_spend_limit' (specific limit check) by emphasizing comprehensive status retrieval.

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 context for when to use this tool ('to check budget for a specific ERC20') and mentions the default behavior (defaults to ETH). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'check_spend_limit' for focused limit queries or 'get_transaction_history' for past activity, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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