get_current_onchain_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the 'most recent' address rather than generating a new one, which is a key behavioral trait distinguishing it from address creation tools. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, or error behavior, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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?

Single concise sentence with the key information front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical '(most recent)' adds crucial clarity without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly identifies what the tool does and the meaning of 'current'. However, it could explicitly state that no new address is created, but the parenthetical already implies this.

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?

The schema already provides a complete description of wallet_id (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing 'a wallet'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'current (most recent) on-chain Bitcoin address' and scope 'for a wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_onchain_address and send_onchain by focusing on retrieval of the existing latest address.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve the wallet's latest on-chain address, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_onchain_address (which creates a new address) or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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