get_wallet_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for receiving funds,' which hints at a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns a specific format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the purpose and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or return format, which could be important for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a broader context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the public address of the configured wallet.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('public address'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_wallet_balance (which retrieves balance, not address). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_mail_quote, send_mail), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage context with 'Useful for receiving funds,' suggesting when this tool might be appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_wallet_balance for checking funds) or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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