receive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one genuine behavioral trait: receiving moves nothing out of the account and bypasses the spend gate, which reassures an agent this is a non-destructive operation. However, it omits batching behavior, any auth requirements, and what happens to incoming blocks across repeated calls.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the clarifying constraint immediately after. No filler, though the terse style leaves room that could have been spent on usage or parameter context.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description bears everything. It conveys the safety semantics well but is incomplete on the undocumented max_blocks parameter and gives no guidance on invocation context or expected results.

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 coverage is 50%: address is documented in the schema, but max_blocks (default 8, min 1, max 64) has no description anywhere, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. An agent cannot tell whether max_blocks is a batch limit, a retry cap, or a pagination size.

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 and resource: pocketing incoming XNO, i.e. receiving funds. The second clause disambiguates it from spending, which is the most likely confusion. It does not relate to siblings (create_address, validate_address, balance), but those are different operations so differentiation is less critical.

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 clarifies what the tool is not (spending, no spend gate) but never says when to call it, what prerequisites exist, or what alternative to use instead. No context for whether the address must already exist or the account must be opened.

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