wallet_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only local lookup ('locally held'), which is the key behavioral fact, but discloses nothing about auth needs, failure modes, or return format. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation 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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the key scope qualifier front-loaded. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a tool in a crowded wallet namespace.

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 getter with no output schema, the description should convey what is returned (the address string) and how it relates to sibling tools such as wallet_receive_info. Neither is provided, leaving real gaps given the size of the sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for and no misleading parameter info.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the locally held wallet address') and adds scope ('locally held'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like wallet_receive_info or wallet_balance, which also surface wallet-derived data.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many wallet_* siblings. An agent must guess when this is preferred over wallet_receive_info or wallet_balance.

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