Checksum-verify a Nano (XNO) address to confirm it can receive payments; returns valid=false with a reason when the checksum fails.
Checksum-verify a Nano (XNO) address. Returns valid=false with a machine-readable reason instead of throwing. A Nano address that fails its checksum looks entirely normal to the eye and can never receive a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | nano_... or xrb_... address |
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 burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it returns valid=false with a machine-readable reason rather than throwing. It does not state whether validation is purely local/checksum-based or involves any network call, leaving a minor gap.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the return behavior and the rationale. Every sentence carries information.
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?
For a one-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description explains the failure return shape, which compensates for the absent output schema. It could clarify success behavior (valid=true) and whether validation is offline, but it is largely complete.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('nano_... or xrb_... address'), so the schema already documents the accepted formats. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.
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 ('Checksum-verify a Nano (XNO) address'), and the operation is clearly distinct from siblings create_address, balance, and receive.
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 implied by the closing sentence about failed addresses never being able to receive payment, which hints at validating before sending, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.