zetrix_crypto_get_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this involves network calls, cryptographic computation, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the address will be in. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and gets straight to the point with zero unnecessary information.

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 this is a cryptographic conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the address will be in (hex, base58, etc.), whether this is a deterministic computation or involves lookups, or what happens with invalid public keys. For a tool that performs cryptographic operations, more context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'publicKey' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose as 'Get Zetrix address from public key', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'zetrix_crypto_get_public_key' (which goes in the opposite direction) and 'zetrix_get_account' (which might retrieve account info by address). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'zetrix_create_keypair' which might also produce addresses.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a public key first), when this conversion is necessary, or what to do if you already have an address. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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