Get AA Responses

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the raw hub read nature, the default network behavior, and the fact that amounts are raw integers in smallest units. This is useful disclosure that annotations do not cover.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two additional paragraphs address network selection and amount formatting, both of which are necessary for correct use. Slight redundancy exists with 'Raw hub read' followed by 'Returns', but overall the text is efficient and well organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics; it does cover the important raw-integer amount behavior and display_total guidance. However, it leaves ambiguities: what exactly constitutes an 'AA response', what happens if neither aa nor aas is provided, and the overall response shape. These gaps matter for an uncomplicated but under-specified tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains the aa/aas distinction ('one' vs 'up to 20'), the network enum values, and the default behavior when network is omitted. It does not explicitly state that at least one of aa or aas should be provided, but it does add meaningful meaning to all three parameters.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('AA responses') with explicit scope (one address or up to 20 addresses). It also adds the qualifier 'Raw hub read', which helps differentiate it from analysis-oriented siblings, though it does not define what an 'AA response' is in detail.

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 description gives useful contextual guidance about selecting the network and confirming it with the user when unspecified. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like obyte_get_aa_response_chain or obyte_analyze_aa, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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