multichain_address_activity

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 describes the return summary (transaction counts, timestamps, status) and implies a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like safety, permissions, or side effects. It is 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 highly concise with three sentences: first states purpose, second details parameters, third summarizes returns. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters with resolution details, and return summary. It is complete enough for a straightforward tool but could mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid address).

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, but the description adds valuable context: walletAddress can accept ENS, RNS, Lens Handle, or Unstoppable Domains with automatic resolution. It also clarifies the testnets default and effect. This goes beyond schema, justifying a 4.

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: to locate chains an address is active on with a single API call. It specifies the required walletAddress and optional testnets. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like multichain_balances or multichain_transactions, the unique focus on activity (transaction counts, timestamps, status) is evident.

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 context ('Commonly used to locate chains') and notes the single-call efficiency, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is inappropriate or suggest other tools for different needs.

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