Address Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the operational shape of the tool (single call, fixed field set, Base-only scope), which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or freshness of the data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and followed by the use case and input. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope (Base), trigger context, and input type, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('0x address on Base', 100% coverage). 'Input: a 0x address' restates the schema without adding format, checksum, or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('any Base address') and enumerates the exact contents returned: ETH balance, USDC balance, tx count, and contract-vs-wallet classification. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like token_balance, which plausibly overlaps on balance lookups, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context: sanity-check a counterparty or payment address before sending funds. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. for token-specific queries, use token_balance).

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