Get Address Attestations

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: this is a raw hub read, the server serves two networks, the network parameter defaults to mainnet, and the agent should confirm ambiguity before calling. No contradiction with the annotations.

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: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, and the network caveat follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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 two-parameter read with strong annotations, the description covers the critical invocation detail: network ambiguity and defaulting behavior. Since there is no output schema, the return shape is not described, and the relationship to obyte_get_attestation is unaddressed, but what an agent needs to call the tool correctly is largely present.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the network parameter, including the default value and confirmation requirement. However, it adds nothing about the address parameter beyond what the schema's type and length constraints imply, leaving only partial compensation.

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 action and resource: 'Raw hub read. Returns attestations associated with one address.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling obyte_get_attestation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides network-selection guidance but no when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance. It never mentions obyte_get_attestation or explains when an agent should prefer this tool over its siblings. The 'Raw hub read' phrase hints at use cases but does not constitute explicit routing.

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