manage_address

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: the confirmation requirement for sync/activate/delete (returning a preview token instead of immediate execution), cursor pagination mechanics, and indicative credit costs. This goes well beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 structured with clear sections and bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Each piece of information (actions, networks, confirmation, credits) justifies its place, avoiding redundancy.

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 complexity (four actions, many networks, confirmation flow), the description covers essential operational details: action-specific parameter needs, network mappings, pagination, and credits. It lacks response format details, which would be useful since there's no output schema, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds conditional requirements (e.g., 'address' required for sync/activate/delete) and explains the pagination parameter usage. It also clarifies the context of blockchain-network mappings.

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 opens with 'Manage synced addresses for Address History APIs', a clear verb-resource pair, then enumerates specific actions (sync, list, activate, delete). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like evm_address_history and utxo_address_history, which focus on querying history.

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 for when to use the tool: to manage addresses for Address History APIs. It details each action and even gives pagination guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings are contextually different.

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