iota_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful operating traits: cost ($0.002 USDC per call) and latency (p99 2000ms). It also clarifies the aggregation scope (balance, staking, USD, names, outgoing txs). It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, but the cost/latency disclosure is valuable context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Effectively one dense sentence front-loading the resource, followed by a short resolution clause and cost/latency tail. Every element (data inventory, cost, latency) earns its place, though the enumeration is heavy enough to border on clustering.

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, so the description must convey return contents — and it thoroughly enumerates the fields (balance, all coins with symbol, staked IOTA per validator with rewards, USD value, pointed name, latest outgoing transactions). Combined with cost/latency and the accepted address forms, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though nothing is said about output shape or pagination.

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 100%, so the single 'address' parameter is already documented with its 0x+64-hex format and name form. The description largely echoes this ('alice.iota', name resolution), adding only modest context ('resolves names to addresses and back') beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (IOTA mainnet address or IOTA name) and enumerates the specific data returned — IOTA balance, other coins, staked IOTA per validator, USD value, name pointers, and latest outgoing transactions. This scope is clearly distinguishable from siblings like iota_tx, iota_network, and iota_watch.

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 enumeration of what the tool returns and by 'Resolves names to addresses and back', which signals the name-lookup use case. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative sibling is provided, so an agent must infer routing from the content list.

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