Analyze Obyte Address

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the server serves both networks at once with mainnet as default, the output is a stable JSON envelope that may be truncated, and raw ledger amounts are integers in smallest units that must never be shown directly to users. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially affect how an agent should use the result.

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?

Though longer than average, the description is tightly structured: purpose/usage, return envelope, network guidance, and amount-handling are each clearly scoped. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information, and the critical warnings about network and decimals are front-loaded into their own sections.

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 has five params, no output schema, and a dual-network server, the description covers all esential aspects: address input format, network selection and default, output shape and truncation, and decimal-handling instructions. It also names sibling tools for compensating operations. The only minor gap is not explaining the 'profile units' component, but this is subordinate to the overall completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the address format (32-character base32), the network parameter values and default, and the return semantics of the booleans via 'optional definition, profile units, attestations, and bounded history.' However, not every boolean is explicitly mapped (e.g., include_history isn't directly tied to 'bounded history'), and 'profile units' has no corresponding parameter, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('an Obyte address') and clearly enumerates what it returns: decimals-aware balance_summary, optional definition, profile units, attestations, and bounded history. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself the 'recommended first tool' for wallet/balance/account questions and by saying 'Use this instead of several raw calls.'

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: whenever a user pastes an Obyte address or asks about a wallet, balance, or account. It provides an exclusion by recommending it 'instead of several raw calls,' and it names alternative tools for decimal resolution (obyte_resolve_asset, obyte_get_decimals_by_symbol_or_asset). It also adds a critical precondition: confirm the network if the user wasn't explicit.

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