Get Token Registry Address

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the mainnet default comes from obyte.js, custom/testnet registries require explicit user trust, and the server serves both networks at once.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides necessary network-selection context. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, network selection, default behavior, trust requirements, and pre-call confirmation. The main gap is the under-explained token_registry_address parameter, but for a simple read-only getter with strong annotations, the description is otherwise complete.

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 must compensate. It explains the network parameter well, including allowed values and default behavior, but only vaguely hints at token_registry_address through 'custom and testnet registries must be explicitly trusted' without explicitly documenting that parameter's purpose and usage.

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 ('returns') and a specific resource ('token registry address for the selected network'). It also clarifies the mainnet/testnet scope, making it easy to distinguish from the many other get_* sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on selecting the network, explains the default behavior, and instructs the agent to confirm the network when the user has not made it explicit. It does not mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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