octav_list_address_bookRetrieve all wallet addresses saved in an account's address book, including labels, plan tiers, expiry dates, and paid status, to review managed portfolios. Costs 1 credit.
List every address saved in the account address book (the same list shown in Octav Pro), with its label, plan (FREE, LITE, PRO), plan expiry, and whether the plan is paid. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the 1-credit cost and a preview of the fields returned. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or size limits, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, clarifies scope ('the same list shown in Octav Pro'), lists the return fields, and notes the credit cost. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.
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 parameterless read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains the returned fields and the credit cost. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on result ordering, pagination, or maximum list size, which an agent might need for large address books.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List every address saved in the account address book') and even enumerates the returned fields (label, plan, expiry, paid flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling address-book mutations such as octav_rename_address_book_entry and octav_remove_address_book_entry.
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 is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the account's saved addresses. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note on when not to call it (e.g., versus bundle tools or add-address tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.