aries_tokens_by_address

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the output (outpoints and balances) and importantly warns about RPC timeouts for high-activity addresses. This is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects, though 'list' implies a read operation.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: purpose, output structure (outpoints and balances), and a significant operational caveat. Could be improved by clarifying the output format or defining 'Alkanes tokens', but it is adequate for the complexity level.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds the context that it wraps another function and fixes protocolTag, but does not add new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it lists all Alkanes tokens held by a Bitcoin address, specifies it wraps an underlying function with fixed protocolTag, and describes the output (outpoints and rune balances). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like aries_token (likely for a single token).

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?

Provides the core use case but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The warning about RPC timeouts for high-activity addresses is a helpful caveat, but it doesn't tell the agent when to choose this tool over others like aries_search.

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