Check Address Type

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it detects specific types but does not cover edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses). With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for function and one sentence for usage hint. Every word adds value, with no repetition or 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose and usage context. It is complete given the tool's complexity and the information from annotations and schema.

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% and the parameter 'address' has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is justified.

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 a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('Solana address type'), clearly stating it identifies wallet, stake, or vote accounts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_balance or check_stake_accounts by focusing on type classification.

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 says 'Useful when you receive an address from user input', providing clear context for when to use. It does not include when not to use or mention alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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