wallet_addressYour own address on Base, to receive USDC. Created the first time you ask. Funds sent on any other chain land at the same address there and cannot be reached from here
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Created the first time you ask,' which implies a write/side-effect operation. This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation that declares the operation read-only. Per rubric, a contradiction yields a score of 1 and flags annotation_contradiction as true.
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 three concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add relevant caveats. There is no unnecessary wording, and the structure is easily scannable.
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?
The description covers the main purpose and important warnings, but the contradiction with readOnlyHint makes the operation's side effects unclear. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return format; 'Your own address' implies the return value, but the contradiction undermines completeness.
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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter descriptions needed. The description adds context about lazy creation, which is behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 that the tool returns the user's own address on Base for receiving USDC, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_balance and wallet_pay. The title 'Get an email address' is misleading, but the description itself is unambiguous about the resource and scope.
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?
It explicitly states the tool's purpose ('to receive USDC') and includes a caution about cross-chain funds being unreachable, effectively providing a when-not-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly compare with wallet_list or others, so it falls short of a 5.
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.