Identify addresses

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 genuinely new context: label provenance, per-label confidence, API-key-dependent Helius lookups, and the deposit-sweep heuristic. It still does not state what happens when labels are absent or how confident-but-conflicting labels are resolved, so it goes beyond annotations without fully covering 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining enumeration of label sources is dense but each item is informative. It is a single long sentence that could be split for scannability, but there is little filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does address return content by noting that each label carries its source and confidence. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is close to sufficient; the main remaining gap is that the address-list parameter and its limits are unexplained anywhere in the description.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it does so only for checkDeposits by explaining what the deposit-address sweep check detects. The required 'addresses' parameter is left entirely to the schema, with no mention of the 50-address cap, format, or whether mixed/batch input is expected, so a significant gap remains.

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 opens with a specific question the tool answers ('Who is behind these Solana addresses') and enumerates the label sources it returns, so the agent knows this is an address-attribution/enrichment tool. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as analyze_wallet or find_counterparties, leaving that boundary to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you need to know who controls a set of addresses. The mention that Helius identity is available 'when the API key has access' is a useful conditional, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over analyze_wallet or trace_funds, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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