cardano_address_infoDecode a Bech32-encoded Cardano address to reveal its type, network, and credential information.
Decode and display information about a Cardano address.
Args:
address (string): Bech32-encoded Cardano address
Returns: Address type, network, and credential information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Bech32-encoded Cardano address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether the address must be valid/testnet/mainnet, whether decoding can fail, or what 'credential information' concretely includes.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and format is compact. The 'Args:' block duplicates the schema, which is minor waste, but overall it is efficient and readable.
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 read-only single-parameter inspector with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names what is returned (address type, network, credentials) but doesn't specify the shape of that output or error conditions. With no output schema, some return-format detail would have been valuable.
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%, and the description merely repeats the schema's parameter description ('Bech32-encoded Cardano address'). Baseline 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the single parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (decode/display) and resource (Cardano address), and the return summary (address type, network, credentials) adds precision. It is not differentiated from the sibling tools that build or derive from addresses (cardano_address_build, cardano_address_key_hash), which could confuse an agent choosing among address-related tools.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With ~60 sibling tools and several address-related siblings (build, key_hash, key_gen), the description never explains when to call this inspector versus those generators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.