allowance_export

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Safe to share publicly' and clarifies that this address is for mainnet USDC payments, while request_faucet is testnet-only. These are key behavioral traits that go beyond the bare action of exporting an address.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second adds a safety note, and the third provides critical usage context and a comparison with request_faucet. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why the address is safe to share, and how it fits into the broader payment flow (mainnet vs testnet). No critical information is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't attempt to, which 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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('local agent allowance address'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_faucet by explaining the mainnet vs testnet contrast, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool (to get a publicly shareable address and as the mainnet on-ramp for real USDC payments) and when not to use it (request_faucet only funds testnet, which cannot settle real payments). This directly addresses usage context and alternatives.

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