derive_addresses

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: it works offline, xpub paths need no special permission, mnemonic usage requires MCP_BITCOIN_ALLOW_MNEMONIC=true, and count is capped at 500. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized: a front-loaded one-sentence summary, then permission/usage notes, then a clear Args block. Each line earns its place and the length is justified by the eight parameters.

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's complexity—8 parameters, BIP-39 passphrases, BIP-44 account/change semantics, and network overrides—the description is highly complete. It explains all parameters, security prerequisites, and operational constraints, while return behavior is covered by the output schema.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds: every parameter is explained with meaningful semantics (source formats, passphrase scope, address type list, change meaning, count cap, network override).

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 that the tool derives addresses from an xpub or seed phrase, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like derive_xpub or derive_from_path, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives useful guidance about preferring xpub/ypub/zpub and the permission requirement for mnemonics, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings such as derive_from_path or get_address_from_pubkey. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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