explorer_get_address_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers safety and scope. The description adds the response content (balances, ENS, contract metadata, tags) but no further behavioral traits like data freshness, indexing delays, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations but provides only modest additional context.

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 a single sentence with no filler: 'Get address overview including balances, ENS name, contract metadata, and public tags.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the key return categories, which is sufficient for a read-only overview tool with two well-documented parameters. Minor gap: it doesn't note that fields like ENS name may be absent for addresses without ENS, but this is not critical.

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 100%: both 'address' and 'chainId' have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'address overview' and enumerates distinct content categories (balances, ENS name, contract metadata, public tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_tokens_by_address or explorer_get_tx_history, which focus on narrower 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 this tool is for general address overviews but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. It does not contrast with more specific explorer tools, so the agent must infer usage from the content list.

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