inspect_blockchain_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It openly discloses read-only behaviors: auto-detecting cryptographic format, verifying ledger existence, querying coin balances, and checking contract bytecode. It does not mention failure modes or what 'auto' chain detection does, but the main behavior is clearly communicated.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It packs a lot of useful detail, though it could be slightly easier to parse if split into shorter sentences or bullets.

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 multi-chain inspection tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the text is fairly complete: it covers input semantics, supported chains, balances, and bytecode behavior. It omits exact chain enum values, auto-detection semantics, and error behavior, but an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'address' means either a wallet address or smart contract, and it indirectly documents the 'chain' parameter by naming Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Stellar, and Ripple/XRPL alongside the schema's 'auto' default. It does not explicitly enumerate chain values, but it compensates well for the bare 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 definition uses a specific verb and resource: it 'inspects' a 'cryptocurrency wallet address or smart contract' on-chain. It names supported blockchains and concrete outputs (native balances, Circle USDC, bytecode), which clearly separates it from price, risk, and simulation siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs on-chain inspection, balance checks, or bytecode verification for an address. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or guidance for choosing between this and overlapping siblings like check_address_risk or simulate_transaction_oracle.

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