dero_get_random_address

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it samples chain-registered addresses and can be restricted to holders of a specific asset via scid. It also discloses the output shape, which is helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 compact and well-structured, with the main verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence followed by short labeled sections for usage, input requirements, and output. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to call, parameter constraints and effect, and the return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result 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?

The input schema already covers scid's type and pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning: scid is optional, must be exactly 64 hex characters, and limits sampling to holders of that asset. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Optional asset smart-contract id (hex)' label.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get random registered addresses from the chain', and names the underlying RPC method, DERO.GetRandomAddress. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like dero_name_to_address or dero_get_transaction, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 description includes an explicit 'When to call' section with concrete use cases: building a transfer ring in external wallet tooling or sampling chain participants. It does not mention when not to call it or name alternative tools, but the provided context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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