radiant_validate_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core read-only behavior and a hint of the output (the address type), but it omits how invalid addresses are handled (error vs. false result), any return format, or network-specific behavior. For a simple validation tool this is acceptable but not fully 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 one concise sentence with no filler. The key action ('Validate') and key output ('show its type') are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain both behavior and result semantics. It explains what the tool does and that it returns the address type, but does not clarify the result for invalid addresses, the exact return structure, or potential error conditions. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 covers the single parameter with 'Address to validate', and the description adds the Radiant-specific context and the type-checking behavior. This is meaningful but minimal; it does not specify expected format, encoding, or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Validate'), a clear resource ('a Radiant address'), and the tool's specific outcome ('show its type (P2PKH or P2SH)'). This distinguishes it immediately from siblings like radiant_derive_address or radiant_get_balance, so an agent understands exactly what this tool does.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to verify a Radiant address and learn its type. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., radiant_derive_address for generating addresses), and no exclusions. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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