Query UTxO

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds two useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the invocation constraint that at least one filter is required, and the return format ('UTxO set as formatted text'). It does not disclose performance or rate-limit behavior, but given the rich annotations this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses a clean Args list and a Returns line. It is efficient, though it repeats parameter text already present in the schema, which slightly inflates its length.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the at-least-one constraint and the return format. It does not need to explain an output schema because none exists, and nothing critical for correct invocation appears absent.

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 repeats the per-parameter descriptions verbatim, which is redundant. However, it adds a genuine semantic constraint not present in the schema: 'At least one of address or tx_ins must be provided.' That mutual-requirement information materially helps correct invocation.

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 ('Query') and resource ('UTxO entries'), and clarifies the two filter axes (address and tx_ins). It is clearly more specific than a generic query tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling query tools like cardano_query_tip or cardano_query_tx_mempool.

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 a filtering condition ('Filter by address and/or specific transaction inputs') and a hard requirement ('At least one of address or tx_ins must be provided'). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as cardano_address_info or cardano_query_tx_mempool, leaving the agent to infer its niche.

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