Generate a Nano (XNO) receiving address offline without network calls; seed and private key stay in-process and are never returned or logged.
Generate a Nano (XNO) receiving address inside this process. Offline: no network call is made. The seed and private key are never returned, transmitted, logged or displayed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | required if store=file | |
| label | No | ||
| store | No | memory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses offline operation and that seed/private key are never returned, transmitted, logged, or displayed, but it omits what is actually returned, file persistence behavior, permission requirements, and idempotency.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then offline behavior, then security guarantees. Every sentence adds relevant information with no wasted 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers security constraints but does not explain return values, file storage side effects, or the semantics of the label and store parameters.
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 only 33% (only 'path' is described). The description adds no meaning for 'path', 'label', or 'store', so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Nano (XNO) receiving address') plus scope ('inside this process'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like validate_address, receive, and balance even without naming them.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings such as validate_address or receive. The 'Offline' note describes behavior, not usage conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.