get_address_attribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (200 credits), the parameters, and the core behavior, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any further behavioral details such as how attribution is computed or whether results are paginated. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by parameter details and cost. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and cost. It is complete enough for basic usage, though it could add a note about expected output shape or typical use cases involving entity attribution.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by listing allowed protocol values (btc, eth, xlm) and providing a concrete address example. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema fields.

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 tool's function: 'Analyze inflow and outflow activity of blockchain wallet addresses with entity-based attribution and percentage breakdowns.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address_stats or get_address_label, which focus on other aspects.

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 for analyzing address activity flows, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude cases. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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