radiant_derive_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently lists the return values and implies a pure derivation (no side effects). However, it does not explicitly mention that it is offline or caution about handling the mnemonic/WIF, which would be valuable for a key-related tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return values, and no superfluous wording. The purpose is stated immediately.

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?

The description covers the essential return values and a practical usage pattern. It lacks explicit error-handling or output-format details, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, these are minor omissions.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the use-case note about varying account/index values, which is also reflected in the path parameter's description.

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 action ('Derive a Radiant address'), the resource (Radiant address from a BIP39 mnemonic and BIP32 path), and the output (address, public key, WIF). This distinguishes it from wallet creation or restoration tools among the siblings.

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?

It provides a concrete use case ('per-task sub-wallets') and advises varying account/index values, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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