validate_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions return values (type, network, script info), though these may be detailed in the output schema. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling (throws vs. returns validation failure), idempotency, or whether network calls are made.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second, followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place without redundant information.

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 (single string parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential contract well. Minor gap in not describing error states or invalid address handling, but adequate for tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting the single 'address' parameter, including accepted formats (P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH, P2TR). This adds crucial semantic meaning missing from the bare schema. Could improve by describing validation failure behavior or input constraints.

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 the specific action (validate), resource (Bitcoin address), and detailed outputs (type, network, script info). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_address_balance or analyze_transaction by focusing specifically on validation and address classification rather than financial data or transaction analysis.

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?

Provides explicit usage contexts ('check if an address is valid before sending', 'identify what kind of address you're looking at'), giving agents clear signals for when to invoke the tool. Lacks named alternatives or explicit exclusions, though the specific purpose makes misuse unlikely.

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