bip32_derive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover all behavioral aspects. It explains the cryptographic derivation process, that the derived private key is returned, the input seed is never echoed, and the return object structure. It does not mention side effects (none expected) but is informative overall.

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 two paragraphs plus an example, well-structured with clear purpose, algorithm, return values, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, algorithm, return object, and example. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the path format (BIP-32/44, hardened steps), that the seed is not echoed, and providing an example. This enhances understanding of parameter usage.

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 the tool derives an HD child key and Ethereum address from a seed along a BIP-32/44 path, specifying the verb, resource, and constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like bip39 (seed generation) and derive_key (general derivation) by focusing on BIP-32 path derivation.

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 includes a detailed example and explains the input format, guiding users to provide a seed rather than a mnemonic. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements compared to sibling tools, though implicit guidance is present.

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