inspect_blockchain_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful lifecycle context (deprecated alias, presumably identical behavior to inspect_address), but says nothing about how chain/address are handled, whether it is a pure passthrough, or any side effects.

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 short bracketed clauses, front-loaded with the deprecation status followed immediately by the redirect. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the alias routing is covered. However, the undocumented parameters and absent behavioral detail (passthrough semantics) leave real gaps for a tool whose schema explains nothing.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either: no explanation of the 'address' format or the 'chain' parameter's 'auto' default. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 identifies the tool as a backward-compatible alias but never states what it actually does (inspect a blockchain address) or what 'inspect' means. It does distinguish it from the sibling inspect_address by naming the replacement, which keeps it above a pure tautology.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use 'inspect_address' instead. The implied condition is that this exists only for callers hardcoded to the old name, but that 'when it is still legitimate to call' case is left to inference.

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