dero_get_random_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent. It adds behavioral detail about optional SCID limiting 'sampling to holders of that asset', which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs. First sentence front-loads the core purpose. Subsequent sections ('When to call', 'Input Requirements', 'Output') are clearly labeled and each sentence adds necessary information without 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter requirement, and output format completely. No gaps remain for an agent to understand how to use it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's effect ('limits sampling to holders of that asset') and restating the format requirement for emphasis, which aids in correct usage.

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?

Describes a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'random registered addresses' with a clear use case 'ring construction in private transfers'. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the privacy context, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'when building a transfer ring in external wallet tooling, or sampling chain participants'. Adds context about optional SCID filtering. Does not explicitly state when not to call, but provides sufficient guidance for correct use.

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