validate_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates address format but does not describe what validation entails (e.g., checksum verification, length constraints), what the output looks like (e.g., boolean result, error messages), or any limitations (e.g., supported blockchains, rate limits). For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a validation tool. It does not explain what constitutes a valid address format, what the validation output includes, or any error handling. With 2 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to ensure the agent can use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('address' and 'blockchain') documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid blockchain names or address formats. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Validate address format for a specific blockchain.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('address format'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_domain' or 'reverse_resolve_domain', which might involve address-related operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid blockchain name, or compare it to sibling tools like 'resolve_domain' for address resolution. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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