wallet_get_pocket_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the return fields (address, network, creation date) and that the address is for receiving deposits, but does not disclose authentication requirements, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 four sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. It includes all essential information without unnecessary words. Slightly verbose with the last sentence but overall efficient.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return values and prerequisite steps. It could mention if addresses are unique per network or note any limitations, but it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context about network being specific and referencing wallet_get_networks, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 on a specific network, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_get_pockets (list wallets) and wallet_get_networks (list networks). The verb 'Lists' and resource 'deposit addresses' are specific.

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 advises using wallet_get_networks first and notes that different networks have different addresses, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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