Inspect address / ENS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds operational context by enumerating what gets inspected (balance, nonce, proxy, EIP-7702, ERC-20 metadata) and noting checksum validation, but it doesn't discuss caching, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that avoids repetition. It is efficient though the long enumeration borders on a feature list rather than prose.

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 read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the main capabilities but lacks details on output shape, error conditions, and when to use it versus siblings; adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: the schema already documents both parameters, including the chain enum and that address accepts ENS. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists specific verbs (resolve, validate, inspect) and a resource (address on a chain), enumerating concrete outputs like balance, nonce, contract/EOA, proxy implementation, EIP-7702 delegation, ERC-20 metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as decode_transaction or decode_calldata.

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 only implies when to use it by listing capabilities; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_chain or decode_transaction, nor any prerequisites.

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