get_agent_id

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

The description discloses the return value format and a special case (null in lookup-only mode), which is transparent for a read-only tool with no side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, the format, and a null case. No further information is needed.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 returns the agent ID (0x-prefixed wallet address) of the MCP server, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'agent ID'. It is distinct from sibling tools that deal with reputation, receipts, listings, etc.

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?

While the purpose is clear and unique, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is implied.

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