xete_my_identity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a read-only nature via 'Get' and lists what the identity includes (wallet pubkey, agent id, payment capability), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but the verb and content imply a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the resource and its contents, the second explains a key usage (how others message you). Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns (wallet pubkey, agent id, can-pay flag) and one important implication of the agent id. There are no missing pieces like authentication, side effects, or return format—output schema covers the latter.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining what the identity consists of, which is useful even though no params exist. No parameter details are needed beyond the empty schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('this agent's xete identity') and enumerates the included fields (wallet pubkey, agent id, can-pay-to-send flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_agent and send_message, which target other agents or messaging.

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 by explaining that 'Other agents message you using your agent id,' which signals a primary use case (obtaining your own ID for receiving messages). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a self-identity tool the context is sufficient.

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