Generate Stealth Address

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

The description uses 'generate' which implies a write/mutation, but annotations have readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations are disclosed, and the contradiction undermines trust.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds value about privacy and control. 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?

Given the simple input and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality and privacy aspect. It could mention prerequisites like ENS resolution, but it's largely complete for a straightforward tool.

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% with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description merely restates 'using their ENS name', adding no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'stealth address' for a recipient via ENS name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'claim-stealth-payment' and 'send-stealth-payment' by focusing on generation.

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 explains the privacy benefit (unlinkable) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send-stealth-payment' or 'claim-stealth-payment'. Usage context is implied but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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