utxo_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 substantial work: it discloses the 14-day data window, per-action pagination mechanics (cursor via 'nextStartingAfter' vs. limit/offset), and per-action credit costs. It stops short of describing return payloads, auth, or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 purpose and well-bulleted, but the three near-identical blockchain lists and the full per-blockchain credit table are repetitive and inflate the description substantially. Structure is good; economy is not.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers actions, supported chains, networks, pagination, and cost. The remaining gap is that it never characterizes what each action returns (balance value vs. transaction list fields), which a reader must infer from the action names.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds conditional semantics the schema cannot: 'startingAfter' only applies to list-transactions (fed from 'nextStartingAfter'), while 'limit'/'offset' apply to list-unconfirmed-transactions. This conditional binding is genuine added meaning beyond the flat schema.

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 with scope: 'Query latest UTXO address data (last 14 days)', then enumerates the three concrete actions. The UTXO framing implicitly separates it from evm/solana/xrp/kaspa siblings, but the description never names them explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear per-action routing (which pagination scheme applies to each action, and which blockchains each action supports), which is real when-to-use guidance. It lacks any explicit when-NOT-to-use or sibling alternative selection rules, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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