sui_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses per-call cost ($0.002 USDC) and p99 latency (2000ms), which is real operational context, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup, nor any auth, rate-limit, or error behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads what the tool covers, followed by a short cost/latency sentence. No filler, though the payload enumeration is long enough that it reads as a list rather than a crisp summary.

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 and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape — which it does thoroughly by enumerating balances, staking, USD value, SuiNS name, and transactions. Missing only read-only confirmation and any note on error or partial-data behavior.

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 100% for the single required 'address' parameter, including the '0x + 64 hex or SuiNS name' format. The description adds only the concrete SuiNS example (alice.sui), which is largely redundant with the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Sui address or SuiNS name) and enumerates the exact payload it returns: balances, staked SUI per validator, USD value, SuiNS name, and latest outgoing transactions. The chain-specific naming separates it from iota_address/btc_address/tron_address, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sui_tx, sui_watch, or sui_network.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternative siblings such as sui_tx or sui_watch. The cost and latency lines hint at invocation tradeoffs but never tell the agent when this tool is the right pick over a narrower one.

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