ramzinex_allocate_address

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a wallet-write action, can fail with 'withdrawals_disabled' error, and is a best-effort implementation with an assumed endpoint. This provides crucial transparency beyond the basic action.

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 description is front-loaded with action and warning, then prerequisites and implementation notes. It is a bit lengthy with technical endpoint details, but every section adds value. No wasted sentences.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, error conditions, parameter semantics, and implementation caveats. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 0%, but the description adds rich meaning: network_id must be >0 and discoverable via sibling tool, currency_id is optional numeric, instance is optional. This compensates fully for the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Allocate/generate a deposit address') and the resource ('the wallet'), and provides a Persian purpose. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ramzinex_get_addresses (read-only) and ramzinex_submit_withdraw (withdrawal).

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 explicitly lists prerequisites (credentials, enable_withdrawals=true, read_only=false) and warns of error if not met. It implies caution but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. However, the context is clear enough.

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