Derive receive and change addresses plus metadata from an extended public key (xpub). Specify account and derive count to generate the addresses you need.
Derive addresses and metadata from an extended public key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xpub | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| derive_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state read-only nature, whether derivation is deterministic, what metadata is returned, or any security context for handling an extended public key. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but behavioral traits are largely absent.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, front-loaded. However, its brevity is a underlying weakness rather than a strength here.
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 3-parameter derivation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify parameter roles, output expectations beyond general 'metadata', or operational context.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'metadata' and 'addresses' but provides no meaning for the xpub, account, or derive_count parameters. The agent must infer from the bare schema names, which is a significant gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'derive addresses and metadata from an extended public key.' This is distinguishable from siblings, though none of the listed sibling tool names cover xpub derivation. The purpose is clear but terse.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. The description merely says what it does, not when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.