derive_addresses

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.