agoragentic_wallet

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

Description implies a read-only check operation ('Check') but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action. No extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only wallet check with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what it returns, though behavioral details (e.g., read-only guarantee) are missing. Output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not needed. Description adds value by explaining the return values (balance, chain, currency), which is beyond the input schema. Baseline for no params is 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check Agoragentic wallet balance and status' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agoragentic_browse and agoragentic_status by focusing solely on wallet information.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., agoragentic_browse, agoragentic_status) but no differentiation is provided.

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