get_wallet_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the primary action (fetching addresses) but omits details like whether it returns a single address or an array, any authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'fetch' and no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description does not specify the return shape or whether addresses are chain-specific. Given the blockchain context from siblings, ambiguity about which chains or address formats are returned makes this only partially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain. The schema already covers everything with no properties.

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 'fetch all the wallet addresses of the user' uses a specific verb (fetch), resource (wallet addresses), and scope (of the user). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on tokens, vaults, and intent execution.

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 usage: call this tool when needing the user's wallet addresses. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. With no overlapping siblings, implicit guidance is sufficient but not spelled out.

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