wallet_get_pocket_addresses

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the exact return fields (address, network, creation date) and the network-dependent nature of addresses. The [PRIVATE] marker also signals sensitive data, which is beyond 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?

Five short sentences each deliver distinct value: purpose, prerequisite, nuance, return fields, and intended use. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important action is front-loaded. The [PRIVATE] tag is appended without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers all essential context: what it lists, what it returns, and how to obtain valid network values. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly listing return fields. The only minor omission, naming wallet_get_pockets for pocket_id, is already compensated by the schema description.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the input schema, meeting the high-coverage baseline. The description adds practical guidance that network values should be discovered via wallet_get_networks first and that addresses are network-specific. This helps an agent select a valid value beyond the raw schema.

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 lists deposit addresses for a wallet (Pocket) on a specific network, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wallet_get_pockets and wallet_get_neteworks by focusing on deposit addresses. The return field list reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly instructs calling wallet_get_neteworks first to see available networks, establishing a clear prerequisite. It also states the intended use case of receiving deposits and notes that networks may have different addresses, helping an agent understand when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention wallet_get_pockets as a source for pocket_id, though the schema captures that.

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