identify_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns a type classification plus contextual summaries with specific examples (balance + SuiNS for wallets, module list for packages, stake info for validators). This conveys the operational behavior and output richness without needing to describe side effects (as it is a read-only identification).

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and classification types; the second sentence describes the output and provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential function, the nature of the return value, and when to use it relative to other tools. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about what the return will be but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The schema already clearly describes 'address' and 'network', so the description is not required to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('Sui address'), and clearly enumerates the classification categories (wallet, package, validator, object). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that query specific types (e.g., get_object, get_balance).

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 explicitly recommends it as the 'Recommended first step' and says 'Use this before deciding which other tools to call,' giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the positioning is sufficient for a helper/classifier tool.

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