kaspa_address_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses cursor-pagination mechanics (pass nextStartingAfter as startingAfter), the mainnet-only restriction, and cost behavior including per-action credit estimates and the caveat that real spend is returned in response headers. It omits auth requirements and any note on which action pagination applies to, but the disclosed operational traits go well beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the one non-obvious usage rule (pagination), then cleanly sectioned bullets for actions, networks, and credits. The credits block is somewhat boilerplate-heavy with two identical 918 figures plus a disclaimer, which is the only place the text stops earning its space.

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 7-parameter, two-action tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: valid actions, valid network, pagination handoff, and cost profile. The one gap is that it never says which action returns the nextStartingAfter cursor, leaving the agent to infer it applies to list-transactions rather than get-balance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents address, network, action, limit, sortingOrder, startingAfter, and context. The description's pagination sentence essentially restates the startingAfter schema text and the action bullets restate the action enum, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Query latest Kaspa address data") and enumerates the two concrete actions, get-balance and list-transactions, so an agent knows exactly what it can do. The chain name in the tool name plus description distinguishes it from evm_address_latest, solana_address_latest, xrp_address_latest, and utxo_address_latest, though the text itself never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the action list and the "mainnet (only)" note tell the agent the valid modes, and the per-chain tool name implies this is the Kaspa-specific entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative (e.g., a generic address tool) that would push this above minimum viability.

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