get_address

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name. The annotation 'openWorldHint: true' is present but the description does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. No contradiction exists, but the description fails to explain any behavioral traits.

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, concise and front-loaded. It earns its place without unnecessary words, though it may be too brief for a complete tool specification. It is well-structured for a simple getter.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It only says 'Get the address' without specifying the return format (e.g., string, object) or context about which wallet address is returned (e.g., active wallet, chain-specific). This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent invoking the tool.

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 100% coverage for its single parameter 'chainId', which is already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the address of the wallet' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (address of the wallet), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not specify which wallet (e.g., active wallet) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'evm_get_wallet_address' or 'get_address_from_ens', so it lacks some differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or context (e.g., active wallet vs. derived addresses). It simply states what the tool does without any instruction on selection.

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