radiant_get_utxos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose details like whether mempool UTXOs are included, ordering, pagination, or output format. This is adequate for a simple getter but not highly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the operation and its scope.

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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with complete schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool. It could be more complete by clarifying the distinction from token UTXOs or describing the response shape, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter. The description reinforces that the address is a Radiant address but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs)') scoped to a Radiant address. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling radiant_get_token_utxos, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when UTXOs for a Radiant address are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as when token-specific UTXOs or a balance overview would be more appropriate.

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