crypto.address-validate

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'full checksum verification (not just regex)', revealing the depth of validation. No contradictions with annotations (none provided). It could mention authorization or rate limits, but for a validation tool, this is adequate.

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 sentences with only 26 words. The primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence provides distinct value: validation method, benefit, and supported chains. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and usage context. It does not specify return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. It could mention that it returns a boolean or status.

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 coverage is 0% (description field is generic). The description compensates by listing supported chains ('btc, eth, sol, ltc, trx, xrp, bch') for the chain parameter, and implicitly requires an address. However, it adds no format details for the address parameter. It partially adds value over the 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 description clearly states the verb (validate), resource (cryptocurrency address), and method (full checksum verification, not just regex). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto.ens-resolve, crypto.gas-oracle, etc., which handle other crypto-related functions. The supported chains are explicitly listed.

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 indicates usage before sending funds ('catches typos before sending funds'). It implies the tool is for pre-transaction validation but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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