resolve_farcaster_username

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resolves a username to profile info and verified wallet address, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., for nonexistent usernames), rate limits, authentication needs, or the structure of the returned profile info. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a usage context linking to a sibling tool. No extraneous words, no repetition of schema details, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a concrete use case. It mentions the key output elements (profile info and wallet address on Base). However, it does not describe the return format or error conditions, which a lacking output schema makes more necessary. Minor gap, but still largely complete for the context.

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% for a single parameter, with the schema already providing type, constraints, and an example. The description adds the note about accepting usernames 'with or without @', which aligns with the schema example. The additional context about the resolution output (profile info and wallet address) gives purpose to the parameter but does not deeply expand semantics beyond what the schema conveys.

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 ('Resolves a Farcaster username') and the specific resource (username to profile info and verified wallet address on Base). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to build_tip_calldata as a downstream use case. The verb 'Resolves' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 a clear when-to-use scenario: 'Useful for looking up a tip recipient's address before calling build_tip_calldata.' This establishes context and a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative siblings for resolution.

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