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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the GET endpoint, a maximum of 10 derived addresses, default receiving behavior, UTXO-only change behavior, per-blockchain credit costs, and that actual credits are returned in response headers. It still omits authentication requirements and error behavior, but it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the content is organized with an endpoint line and a credits bullet list. The per-blockchain credit list is long but relevant for a paid API, so most of the text earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, endpoint, default mode, derivation limit, and cost, which is adequate for a utility endpoint. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the response shape, authentication needs, or error cases an agent may need before invoking it.

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 every parameter including isChange and addressesCount. The description mainly repeats those schema semantics, adding only the UTXO-only restriction for isChange and the up-to-10 derivation limit, which justifies the baseline rather than a higher score.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: deriving HD wallet change or receiving addresses from xPub/yPub/zPub, without syncing. It clearly distinguishes the two address modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling utils such as utxo_utils or evm_utils.

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 guidance is implied through the default receiving address behavior and the isChange=true rule for change addresses (UTXO only). There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named among the sibling tools.

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

Does 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 add genuinely useful non-schema behavior: per-action/per-chain credit costs, a disclaimer that costs are indicative, and the fact that actual credits are returned in response headers. However it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature of these operations.

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 purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled bullet sections for actions, chain/network mapping, and credits. The credit block is long but earns its place as cost information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

Covers purpose, actions, supported chain/network combinations, and cost for a 6-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations. But there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what validate-address or decode-raw-transaction return (boolean vs object), which leaves an interpretation gap for an agent.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description goes beyond the schema by mapping which networks belong to which blockchain (e.g. tron -> mainnet/nile, ethereum-classic -> mainnet/mordor). That constraint cannot be expressed by the two flat enums, so it adds real selection value.

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 specific verbs and resources ('validate address', 'decode raw transaction hex') and explicitly enumerates both actions with one-line glosses. The EVM scope plus the supported blockchain list cleanly separates it from the chain-family siblings utxo_utils and xrp_utils without needing to name them.

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 action list and the per-action credit table implicitly tell the agent which action to pick and which chains each action supports, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing statement relative to the sibling utils tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed,' which is key behavioral information. It also discloses detailed content such as retry strategy, HMAC security, and rate-limit penalty multipliers, going well beyond a generic 'returns info' statement.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'no API call, no credits consumed' caveat and uses a compact bullet list. Each bullet covers a distinct action without wasted prose, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 reference-documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough: it defines all five actions and gives sufficient detail about their content. It also clarifies side effects (none) and cost implications (none), covering the main contextual risks.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each allowed action enum value in detail (e.g., callbacks covers URL requirements, 5 retries, HMAC). This transforms enum names into actionable context and compensates fully beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions.

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 this is CryptoAPIs reference documentation with no API call or credits consumed, and enumerates five specific topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This clearly identifies it as an informational tool distinct from domain siblings like aml.

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 bulleted actions give clear contexts for when to use the tool, such as looking up error codes, credit structures, callback mechanics, or rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: per-action credit costs, plus the note that credits are indicative and the actual spend is returned in response headers. It does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 one-line summary followed by tight bulleted actions, then supporting tables. The credit tables add length, but given the absence of annotations that cost detail earns its place. Structure is scannable with no filler prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch return shapes — particularly for decode-raw-transaction, whose usefulness depends on what decoded fields come back. It also says nothing about pagination or response envelope. The operational details it does provide are solid, making this adequate but incomplete for an output-heavy utility.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by pairing each blockchain with its supported networks and by restating which parameters each action requires (address, rawTransactionHex, and the convert action's lack of a blockchain parameter). The enum pairings are genuinely new information not encoded in 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?

The description names the resource (UTXO utilities) and enumerates three specific actions — validate-address, decode-raw-transaction, convert-bitcoin-cash-address — so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling chain-family tools (evm_utils, xrp_utils), leaving sibling differentiation to inference from the name.

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?

Each action gets a one-line conditional, including the exception that convert-bitcoin-cash-address is Bitcoin Cash only and takes network + address rather than a blockchain parameter. The blockchain→networks matrix further tells the agent which combinations are legal. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over evm_utils/xrp_utils, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose network support (mainnet/testnet) and per-action credit costs. However, it does not state that all three actions are pure read/compute operations, nor describe error behavior, rate limits, or whether credits are consumed on failure — significant omissions for an unannotated tool.

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 resource and its actions, then networks, then costs — a logical structure with no filler prose. The credits section is somewhat verbose for a tool description, mainly because it repeats a uniform cost three times, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by implying return content (validity check, decoded classic address plus tag, encoded X-Address). Networks and credit behavior are covered as well. What is left implicit is the exact return shape and failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 every parameter including which fields each action requires. The description's mapping of fields to actions (e.g. address for validate-address) largely repeats the schema, adding no format, encoding, or validation semantics beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (XRP utils) and enumerates the three concrete operations — validate-address, decode-x-address, encode-x-address — with a one-line statement of what each does. The chain-specific naming (XRP) also separates it from sibling tools like evm_utils and utxo_utils.

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?

Per-action descriptions tell the agent which action fits which task, which is useful routing within the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (evm_utils, utxo_utils, derive_addresses) or when not to use it. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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