get_address

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the responsibility. It discloses that the tool can either return an existing address or mint a new one, which is helpful. However, it doesn't clarify whether minting a new address has side effects (e.g., creating a new request) or any limits. Given no annotations, the description is somewhat vague but not misleading.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core function and includes the critical behavior of minting a fresh address. It avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficient for the agent 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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema (which likely details the returned address), the description covers the essential input behavior. However, it omits context on when to call it versus alternatives and any limitations (e.g., whether minting requires additional input). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of request_id: it is used to look up an existing address, and if null, a fresh address is minted. This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition, though it could elaborate on the format of request_id (e.g., integer vs. string) or the resulting address format.

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 action: returning a one-time Nano payment address for a given request_id, with the option to mint a fresh one. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, the verb 'return' and the specific resource 'one-time Nano payment address' make the purpose clear.

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 implies usage: when you have a request_id, get its payment address; if request_id is null, mint a fresh address. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_payment or pay_and_call, nor does it mention any constraints or prerequisites.

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