lw_address

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

No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Generate a receive address,' omitting whether addresses are new each call, deterministic, require existing wallet, or what happens with/without the index parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to infer 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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, but this risks underspecification. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a bit more detail without verbosity.

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 simple tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks network context (Liquid) which is important given sibling tools for different networks, making it somewhat incomplete.

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% and describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description states 'Generate a receive address' which is a clear verb+resource. However, given siblings like btc_address and lightning_receive, it does not specify that this is for Liquid wallet addresses, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance provided. Does not indicate when to use lw_address over btc_address, lightning_receive, or other address-generation tools. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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