crypto.address-validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation includes full checksum verification beyond regex and that it catches typos. However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or whether it requires network access. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but lack output specifics.

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, very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output details without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., boolean or validated address). It covers the main purpose and supported chains but lacks information about error behavior, rate limits, or network requirements. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It lists the chains (matching the enum) and explains the validation process (checksum, not just regex). It adds context about the purpose but does not explain the address parameter beyond its existence. It provides some additional semantics but not comprehensive.

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 it validates a cryptocurrency address with full checksum verification, not just regex, and lists the supported chains. It is specific about the verb (validate) and resource (cryptocurrency address), and distinguishes from generic validation tools by focusing on crypto addresses.

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 implies usage before sending funds to catch typos but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling tools like crypto.ens-resolve or validate.* tools.

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