get_address_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses cost (5 credits) and conditionality ('when available'), but fails to mention error handling, rate limits, or data freshness. With zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for a fully transparent operation.

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, with a one-sentence purpose, a structured Args block, and a cost note. Each element serves a purpose, though the protocol list is lengthy and could be moved to an enum in the schema to reduce verbosity.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use this single-address tool versus bulk operations, and omits any behavioral caveats beyond cost. For a simple lookup with good parameter hints, it is barely adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section compensates by listing valid protocols (btc, eth, etc.) and providing an example address. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could further explain address format per protocol.

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 retrieves a category label for a blockchain address and includes associated entity when available. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_address_risk_score or bulk_address_label, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'category label' are specific.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose and sibling names, such as bulk_address_label for batch operations and get_address_risk_score for risk scoring. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative mention, leaving selection to inference.

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