wallet_derive_addresses

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the tool requires a specific environment variable (WEB3AGENT_ALLOW_AGENT_VISIBLE_SECRETS=1) because it handles a mnemonic in agent context, and it discloses the output fields. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the gating and security-sensitive nature of the 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 three tight sentences: purpose, output, and gating/alternative. All sentences earn their place, are front-loaded with the core function, and contain no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of a complete input schema, the description is adequately complete. It summarizes output, notes the read-only nature via annotations, and discloses the gating requirement. It lacks a full output schema, but the summary of return fields is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 already covers both parameters (mnemonic and count) with descriptions including the default and range. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('derive') and resource ('addresses from a mnemonic'), with a count range (1-20). It distinguishes itself from related wallet tools by emphasizing 'multiple addresses' and specifying the output (index, address, derivation path), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: it is gated behind an environment variable, and the instruction 'Prefer local CLI' signals when not to use this tool in favor of a local alternative. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like wallet_from_mnemonic, but the gating and CLI preference give actionable guidance.

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