easypost_verify_addressCreate and verify a US or international address, returning deliverability and normalized/corrected fields. No charge. API: POST /addresses (body { address, verify: ["delivery"] }).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | Postal/ZIP code | |
| city | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| state | No | 2-letter state/province code | |
| company | No | ||
| country | No | 2-letter ISO country code, default US | |
| street1 | Yes | Street address line 1 | |
| street2 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it creates and verifies (write operation), returns deliverability info, and specifies the API path. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.
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, each serving a purpose: what it does, cost, API details. Front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description provides essential return fields (deliverability, normalized). It covers the main use case but omits error handling or edge cases. Sufficient for a relatively simple tool.
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 description coverage is low (40%), and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema. The mention of the API body structure is helpful but insufficient to compensate for the lack of parameter-level details.
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 tool creates and verifies an address, specifies the target (US or international), and mentions the return of deliverability and normalized fields. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_address or create_shipment.
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?
While it notes 'No charge', it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_address for existing addresses). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: address operations, shipment lifecycle (create, buy, refund, get, list), and tracking. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent `easypost_<verb>_<resource>` pattern using snake_case, with clear verbs like create, get, list, buy, refund, verify.
11 tools cover the essential operations for address management, shipment lifecycle, and tracking without being too many or too few.
Core workflows (rate, buy, refund, track, address verification) are complete. Minor gaps like missing delete for addresses or update for shipments are acceptable for the domain.